Carus 27.801 XIII

The 1610 Print

Along with Monteverdi’s later collection Selva morale e spiri uale (1641), the print of 1610 belongs to a category referred to as repertoire prints, which unite in one volume music for the two most important worship services of the universal church, the Mass and Vespers . The descrip tion of the collection in the signature marks on the vocal parts is in keeping with the tradition of such repertoire prints: “Messa & Salmi di Claudio Monte Verde .”11 Although the collection’s contents possess parallelisms in genre with a number of other repertoire prints (mass, psalms, magnificat and motets),12 there are major differences between Monteverdi’s collec tion of 1610 and other contemporary prints of this kind:

1 . Psalms and concerti are not in separate categories, they alternate .

2 . The magnificat settings are two versions of the same composition .

3 . The mass setting adopts a very archaic form of parody mass . 4 . Psalms and magnificat follow a clearly-defined and even

named common principle .

Especially the first point has been the topic of much discussion . The hypothesis that we have a complete vespers setting at hand – and not merely a series of vesper composi tions – is primarily and definitively based on this fact . We know of only one other collection with this type of combination,13 and it is not truly comparable .14 The presence of the two magni ficats is just as puzzling, and may support the hypothesis of a coherent vespers setting . Many collections contain numerous magnificats, but these usually differ in type and psalm tone, in order to recommend a given collection for as many vespers and occasions as possible .15 Together with the ritornelli ad libitum (in No . 2) and the falsobordone notation in the vocal parts of the responsory, the unusual presence of two versions of the same magnificat (with and without obbligato instruments) has awakened the impression that we are dealing with one and the same coherent vespers setting in two versions (with and without obbligato instruments) – and not with a collection kept as general as possible .16

By contrast, points three and four underline the very unusual programmatic demands of the collection, in which Monteverdi wishes to display a stylistic variety with high impact . Stylistic extremes are evident in the consciously conservative mass and the innovative concerti: both are extreme in the forms found here, but neither is unusual when taken for itself . However, the psalms and the magnificat are the most breathtaking . “Vespro della B . Vergine da concerto, composto sopra canti fermi” is the programmatic subtitle found in the basso continuo score,17 which describes the daring combination of the retrospective cantus firmus technique with the highly-modern concerto style in one composition . As was the custom, Monteverdi varied the style from psalm to psalm, but still remained true to his chosen fundamental principle . As with the parody form of the mass, Casola had also described this fact in his letter to Ferdinando Gonzaga as a prominent characteristic: “Salmi del Vespero della Madonna, con varie et diverse maniere d’inventione et armonia, et tutte sopra il canto fermo .”18 Even if one can dispute about liturgical unity (see below), composi tional and artistic unity is in itself already attested to by this unusual subtitle .

This programmatic concept of the 1610 collection may also be responsible for points one and two as mentioned above . Taken for

themselves, the inserted concerti and the sonata follow a logical order of increasing the number of participants, a standard feature of many collections of the time . The positioning between the psalms sharpens the contrast and increases the collection’s coloration . There is also evidence for the fact that motets (to which the concerti belong) were performed between the vesper psalms . This type of order would therefore have been expedient, exemplary, and programmatic – independent of any general liturgical context . The two versions of the magnificat19 could also be indebted to Monteverdi’s incentive to prove his capability to create equivalent compositions: one for a large instrumental apparatus, and an a cappella version .

In all of the movements scored for instruments where the actual number of participants exceeds the number of available part-books (i .e ., seven), vocal and instrumental parts are printed together on each left and right hand facing page of a part-book, respectively . The page turns for these shared parts concur .20 The distribution of the additional voices was carried out differently in the part-books for each composition . In the three works with obbligato instrumentation (Nos . 1, 11 and 13), the same instrument is hardly ever assigned to the same vocal part twice (see below) . The Missa and Magnifi cat are treated as works with more than one movement . When voices pause during a certain piece, the marking “tacet” is used . Other compositions are treated as individual works of their own, since these are not mentioned in the part-books which are not involved .

The oversized “Bassus generalis” part-book contains, for the most part, a basso continuo part largely without figuration, which still frequently takes on the form of a basso seguente in longer pas-sages . On the other hand, the four concerti are printed in full score in the “Bassus generalis,” as was the general custom with this type

11 Michael Praetorius abbreviates the title even further and speaks of Monteverdi’s (“Claudii de Monteverde”) “Psalmi vespertini,” a common title-page formulation of the time (Syntagmatis Musici … Tomus Tertius, Wolfenbüttel, 1619, reprint, Kassel, 1954 (Dokumenta musicologia, I:XV), p . 128; Praetorius describes the verse sequence of the hymn “Ave maris stella” here) .

12 Some examples: Giovanni Paolo Cima, Concerti ecclesiastici, Milan, 1610; Francesco Rognoni Taegio, Messa, salmi intieri et spezzati, Magnificat, falsi bordone & motetti, Milan, 1610; Valerio Bona, Messa e vespro a quattro chori, Venice, 1611; Tomaso Cecchino, Psalmi, missa, et alia cantica, Venice, 1619; Sigismondo Arsilli, Messa, e vespri della Madonna, Rome, 1621 .

13 Paolo Agostini, Salmi della Madonna, Magnificat A 3. Voci. Hinno Ave Maris Stella, Antiphone A una 2. & 3. Voci. Et Motetti. Tutti Concertati, Rome, 1619 .

14 On the one hand, the antiphons do indeed have antiphonal texts, and on the other, they are – exemplarily? – noted between the psalms . However, in the table of contents (tavola), both are listed in separate groups .

15 Uwe Wolf, “Et nel fine tre variate armonie sopra il Magnificat . Bemerkungen zur Vertonung des Magnificats in Italien im frühen 16 . Jahrhundert,” in: Neues Musikwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 2 (1993), pp . 39−54 .

16 Manfred H . Stattkus also sees two versions of the same work (SV 206, 206a); cf . Claudio Monteverdi. Verzeichnis der erhaltenen Werke. Kleine Ausgabe, Bergkamen, 1985, p . 50ff .

17 Heading of the responsory in the basso continuo score .18 Cf . footnote 3 .19 Scholars have discussed several questions, such as: which of the versions is the

earlier one, are they two versions of the same composition at all, or are they merely similar compositions? (see Whenham, 1997, p . 78f . and Kurtzman, 1999, p . 264ff ., with a summary of the discussion to date) . Meanwhile, some indica-tions speak in favor of the idea that the interrelationship of the two Magnificats is more complicated, and cannot simply be described with the one-dimensional terms “first version” and “second version”: Both compositions contain passages for which one could well argue that they should be considered to be earlier mate-rial . Most likely, precursors existed which influenced one another reciprocally .

20 For details, see the table in the Critical Report, p . 143 .

Carus 27.801XII

Foreword

Introduction

The Vespro della Beata Vergine is part of a collection which appeared in 1610 bearing the title “Sanctissimae Virgini Missa senis vocibus, Ac Vespere pluribus decantandae .”1 It begins with the Missa In illo tempore, a mass which parodies Nicolas Gombert’s motet of the same name, and is followed by the sequence of pieces known as the Vespers of the Blessed Virgin, which we present in our score: responsory, five vesper psalms for Marian festivals, hymn and magnificat (in two versions), as well as the concerti Nigra sum, Pulchra es, Duo Seraphim, Audi coelum (interpolated between the psalms), and the Sonata sopra Santa Maria.2

Very little is known about the genesis of the Vespers of the Blessed Virgin, or more specifi cally, about the collection containing it . The collection was first described in July of 1610 by Monteverdi’s assistant Don Bassano Casola (the dates of his lifetime are unknown) . In a letter to Cardinal Ferdinando Gonzaga, the younger son of Monteverdi’s noble employer Vincenzo Gonzaga, Casola wrote that Monteverdi’s six-voice “Messa da Cappella” on themes from Gombert’s motet “In illo tempore” was currently being published . Along with the mass, psalms for a Vespers of the Blessed Virgin (“Salmi del Vespro della Madonna”) were being printed . These were to consist of varying and diverse inventions and harmonies over a canto fermo (cantus firmus) . Casola further reported that Monteverdi intended to travel to Rome in autumn, in order to personally dedicate the collection to his Holiness the Pope .3

The print does indeed bear a dedication to Pope Paul V . which is dated 1 September 1610 . Researchers unanimously assume that Monteverdi wished to recommend himself as a com poser to the Pope – and most likely to other potential church employers – with this collection . The characteristic of a “portfolio” has left an essential impression on the 1610 print in many respects, and it is certainly an important key to understanding the collection . Certainly, this was the reason for combining a mass and vespers music in one volume . The mass was traditionally conservative, while more modern trends4 were pursued in the vespers; Monte verdi utilized the tension between these contrasting idioms more than any other composer of his time .

On 1 September, the date of dedication, the print may well have been nearly complete, since Monteverdi set out for Rome shortly after this date, already arriving at the beginning of October .5 Monteverdi’s attempts to attain entrance into the Seminario Romano for his son Francesco was the main purpose of his trip to Rome . However, the trip was hardly successful: Monte verdi neither succeeded in securing a place for his son at the Seminario nor did he obtain an audience with the Pope to present his print in person .

Monteverdi may possibly have met the Pope already in 1607 in Mantua . This could explain why Monteverdi quoted his opera L’Orfeo,6 which had been performed for the first time that year in Mantua, in the vespers’ responsory and magnificat .

Monteverdi’s intention of travelling to Rome was probably also the motive for the publication of the mass and vespers, which might have been planned for a longer period of time, but had not yet been carried out . Casola’s first reference to the collection already

associates it with the trip to Rome (cf . above) . Publication most likely took place under considerable time pressure, since Casola mentions the work on the print in July as a novelty, the dedication is dated 1 September, and Monteverdi already had to leave for Rome shortly after this date . At any rate, such time pressure could explain certain discrepancies in the print of 1610, especially the existence of deviant versions of various pieces in the basso continuo score (see below) – which are presumably earlier – as well as a larger number of printing errors .

Whether a “premiere performance” of all or some of the pieces took place before the collec tion went to press is unknown . While it seems more plausible in the case of the mass that it was created especially for this publication, the instruments employed in the three movements with ob bligato instruments (Nos . 1, 11 and 13) vary considerably, which allows for the assumption that at least some of these pieces were composed for different occasions,7 with instrumentation specifically tailored to the particular performance situations . Differing versions of the basso continuo and the vocal parts in no less than five pieces allow the assumption that exist ing pieces were revised .

However, church music did not actually belong to Monteverdi’s vocational obligations in Mantua, but this does not rule out that he also took part in church music performances at important festivities .8 Various hypotheses on the occasion and purpose of the compositions have been brought forward in the last fifty years, none of which could be supported by any documentary evidence at all up until now .9 No performances can be verified for Monteverdi’s Venetian period either (although we can at least safely assume that individual sections were per formed) . By contrast, when Monteverdi applied for the position of maestro di cappella at San Marco in Venice, the 1610 print was surely an essential argument for actually entrusting him with the position .10

1 For the complete title cf . Critical Report . 2 The mass and the second “small” version of the Magnificat are not part of the

present edition . However, they are available separately from the same publishing house: Carus 40 .670 und 27 .205 .

3 In the original: “Il Monteverdi fa stampare una Messa da Cappella a sei voci di studio et fatica grande, essendosi obligato maneggiar sempre in ogni nota per tutte le vie, sempre più rinforzando le otto fughe che sono nel motetto, in illo tempore del Gomberti e fà stampare unitamente ancora di Salmi del Vespro della Madonna, con varie et diverse maniere d’inventioni et armonia, et tutte sopra il canto fermo, con pensiero di venirsene a Roma questo Autumno, per dedicarli a Sua Santità .” This letter was first published by Emil Vogel, “Claudio Monteverdi . Leben und Wirken im Lichte der zeitgenössischen Kritik und Verzeichnis seiner Werke,” in: Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft 3 (1887), p . 430 . The letter has been cited often in literature on the Vespers .

4 Cf . Uwe Wolf, Notation und Aufführungspraxis. Studien zum Wandel von Notenschrift und Notenbild in italienischen Musikdrucken der Jahre 1571−1630, Kassel, 1992, vol . I, p . 44ff .

5 One must consider that at the time, music prints could only be produced in a few locations . Monteverdi’s collection appeared in the very center of music publica-tion, in one of the large printing offices of Venice (Riccardo Amandino) . From there, the copies first had to reach Monteverdi .

6 Jeffrey Kurtzman, The Monteverdi Vespers of 1610. Music, Context, Performance, Oxford, 1999, p . 14 . The Pope was staying in Mantua in May 1607 . The performance of L'Orfeo had already occurred in February of 1607, but it still could have been a topic at the court .

7 For example, the absence of a third cornetto part in the responsory (the part of the first viola would match perfectly) is just as difficult to explain as the absence of violas in the Sonata and the Magnificat .

8 Cf . among others John Whenham, Monteverdi: Vespers 1610, Cambridge, 1997, p . 29ff .

9 Various theses are summarized by Kurtzman 1999, p . 11ff .10 A Venetian document mentions that not only the test pieces Monteverdi per-

formed, but also his printed works spoke for his election (cf . Whenham, 1997, p . 40 and Kurtzman, 1999, p . 52f) . We can presume with certainty that only church works were consulted . Aside from the early three-voice pieces Sacrae cantiunculae (1582) und the print of 1610, Monteverdi had not published any sacred works .

Carus 27.801 XIII

The 1610 Print

Along with Monteverdi’s later collection Selva morale e spiri uale (1641), the print of 1610 belongs to a category referred to as repertoire prints, which unite in one volume music for the two most important worship services of the universal church, the Mass and Vespers . The descrip tion of the collection in the signature marks on the vocal parts is in keeping with the tradition of such repertoire prints: “Messa & Salmi di Claudio Monte Verde .”11 Although the collection’s contents possess parallelisms in genre with a number of other repertoire prints (mass, psalms, magnificat and motets),12 there are major differences between Monteverdi’s collec tion of 1610 and other contemporary prints of this kind:

1 . Psalms and concerti are not in separate categories, they alternate .

2 . The magnificat settings are two versions of the same composition .

3 . The mass setting adopts a very archaic form of parody mass . 4 . Psalms and magnificat follow a clearly-defined and even

named common principle .

Especially the first point has been the topic of much discussion . The hypothesis that we have a complete vespers setting at hand – and not merely a series of vesper composi tions – is primarily and definitively based on this fact . We know of only one other collection with this type of combination,13 and it is not truly comparable .14 The presence of the two magni ficats is just as puzzling, and may support the hypothesis of a coherent vespers setting . Many collections contain numerous magnificats, but these usually differ in type and psalm tone, in order to recommend a given collection for as many vespers and occasions as possible .15 Together with the ritornelli ad libitum (in No . 2) and the falsobordone notation in the vocal parts of the responsory, the unusual presence of two versions of the same magnificat (with and without obbligato instruments) has awakened the impression that we are dealing with one and the same coherent vespers setting in two versions (with and without obbligato instruments) – and not with a collection kept as general as possible .16

By contrast, points three and four underline the very unusual programmatic demands of the collection, in which Monteverdi wishes to display a stylistic variety with high impact . Stylistic extremes are evident in the consciously conservative mass and the innovative concerti: both are extreme in the forms found here, but neither is unusual when taken for itself . However, the psalms and the magnificat are the most breathtaking . “Vespro della B . Vergine da concerto, composto sopra canti fermi” is the programmatic subtitle found in the basso continuo score,17 which describes the daring combination of the retrospective cantus firmus technique with the highly-modern concerto style in one composition . As was the custom, Monteverdi varied the style from psalm to psalm, but still remained true to his chosen fundamental principle . As with the parody form of the mass, Casola had also described this fact in his letter to Ferdinando Gonzaga as a prominent characteristic: “Salmi del Vespero della Madonna, con varie et diverse maniere d’inventione et armonia, et tutte sopra il canto fermo .”18 Even if one can dispute about liturgical unity (see below), composi tional and artistic unity is in itself already attested to by this unusual subtitle .

This programmatic concept of the 1610 collection may also be responsible for points one and two as mentioned above . Taken for

themselves, the inserted concerti and the sonata follow a logical order of increasing the number of participants, a standard feature of many collections of the time . The positioning between the psalms sharpens the contrast and increases the collection’s coloration . There is also evidence for the fact that motets (to which the concerti belong) were performed between the vesper psalms . This type of order would therefore have been expedient, exemplary, and programmatic – independent of any general liturgical context . The two versions of the magnificat19 could also be indebted to Monteverdi’s incentive to prove his capability to create equivalent compositions: one for a large instrumental apparatus, and an a cappella version .

In all of the movements scored for instruments where the actual number of participants exceeds the number of available part-books (i .e ., seven), vocal and instrumental parts are printed together on each left and right hand facing page of a part-book, respectively . The page turns for these shared parts concur .20 The distribution of the additional voices was carried out differently in the part-books for each composition . In the three works with obbligato instrumentation (Nos . 1, 11 and 13), the same instrument is hardly ever assigned to the same vocal part twice (see below) . The Missa and Magnifi cat are treated as works with more than one movement . When voices pause during a certain piece, the marking “tacet” is used . Other compositions are treated as individual works of their own, since these are not mentioned in the part-books which are not involved .

The oversized “Bassus generalis” part-book contains, for the most part, a basso continuo part largely without figuration, which still frequently takes on the form of a basso seguente in longer pas-sages . On the other hand, the four concerti are printed in full score in the “Bassus generalis,” as was the general custom with this type

11 Michael Praetorius abbreviates the title even further and speaks of Monteverdi’s (“Claudii de Monteverde”) “Psalmi vespertini,” a common title-page formulation of the time (Syntagmatis Musici … Tomus Tertius, Wolfenbüttel, 1619, reprint, Kassel, 1954 (Dokumenta musicologia, I:XV), p . 128; Praetorius describes the verse sequence of the hymn “Ave maris stella” here) .

12 Some examples: Giovanni Paolo Cima, Concerti ecclesiastici, Milan, 1610; Francesco Rognoni Taegio, Messa, salmi intieri et spezzati, Magnificat, falsi bordone & motetti, Milan, 1610; Valerio Bona, Messa e vespro a quattro chori, Venice, 1611; Tomaso Cecchino, Psalmi, missa, et alia cantica, Venice, 1619; Sigismondo Arsilli, Messa, e vespri della Madonna, Rome, 1621 .

13 Paolo Agostini, Salmi della Madonna, Magnificat A 3. Voci. Hinno Ave Maris Stella, Antiphone A una 2. & 3. Voci. Et Motetti. Tutti Concertati, Rome, 1619 .

14 On the one hand, the antiphons do indeed have antiphonal texts, and on the other, they are – exemplarily? – noted between the psalms . However, in the table of contents (tavola), both are listed in separate groups .

15 Uwe Wolf, “Et nel fine tre variate armonie sopra il Magnificat . Bemerkungen zur Vertonung des Magnificats in Italien im frühen 16 . Jahrhundert,” in: Neues Musikwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 2 (1993), pp . 39−54 .

16 Manfred H . Stattkus also sees two versions of the same work (SV 206, 206a); cf . Claudio Monteverdi. Verzeichnis der erhaltenen Werke. Kleine Ausgabe, Bergkamen, 1985, p . 50ff .

17 Heading of the responsory in the basso continuo score .18 Cf . footnote 3 .19 Scholars have discussed several questions, such as: which of the versions is the

earlier one, are they two versions of the same composition at all, or are they merely similar compositions? (see Whenham, 1997, p . 78f . and Kurtzman, 1999, p . 264ff ., with a summary of the discussion to date) . Meanwhile, some indica-tions speak in favor of the idea that the interrelationship of the two Magnificats is more complicated, and cannot simply be described with the one-dimensional terms “first version” and “second version”: Both compositions contain passages for which one could well argue that they should be considered to be earlier mate-rial . Most likely, precursors existed which influenced one another reciprocally .

20 For details, see the table in the Critical Report, p . 143 .

Carus 27.801XII

Foreword

Introduction

The Vespro della Beata Vergine is part of a collection which appeared in 1610 bearing the title “Sanctissimae Virgini Missa senis vocibus, Ac Vespere pluribus decantandae .”1 It begins with the Missa In illo tempore, a mass which parodies Nicolas Gombert’s motet of the same name, and is followed by the sequence of pieces known as the Vespers of the Blessed Virgin, which we present in our score: responsory, five vesper psalms for Marian festivals, hymn and magnificat (in two versions), as well as the concerti Nigra sum, Pulchra es, Duo Seraphim, Audi coelum (interpolated between the psalms), and the Sonata sopra Santa Maria.2

Very little is known about the genesis of the Vespers of the Blessed Virgin, or more specifi cally, about the collection containing it . The collection was first described in July of 1610 by Monteverdi’s assistant Don Bassano Casola (the dates of his lifetime are unknown) . In a letter to Cardinal Ferdinando Gonzaga, the younger son of Monteverdi’s noble employer Vincenzo Gonzaga, Casola wrote that Monteverdi’s six-voice “Messa da Cappella” on themes from Gombert’s motet “In illo tempore” was currently being published . Along with the mass, psalms for a Vespers of the Blessed Virgin (“Salmi del Vespro della Madonna”) were being printed . These were to consist of varying and diverse inventions and harmonies over a canto fermo (cantus firmus) . Casola further reported that Monteverdi intended to travel to Rome in autumn, in order to personally dedicate the collection to his Holiness the Pope .3

The print does indeed bear a dedication to Pope Paul V . which is dated 1 September 1610 . Researchers unanimously assume that Monteverdi wished to recommend himself as a com poser to the Pope – and most likely to other potential church employers – with this collection . The characteristic of a “portfolio” has left an essential impression on the 1610 print in many respects, and it is certainly an important key to understanding the collection . Certainly, this was the reason for combining a mass and vespers music in one volume . The mass was traditionally conservative, while more modern trends4 were pursued in the vespers; Monte verdi utilized the tension between these contrasting idioms more than any other composer of his time .

On 1 September, the date of dedication, the print may well have been nearly complete, since Monteverdi set out for Rome shortly after this date, already arriving at the beginning of October .5 Monteverdi’s attempts to attain entrance into the Seminario Romano for his son Francesco was the main purpose of his trip to Rome . However, the trip was hardly successful: Monte verdi neither succeeded in securing a place for his son at the Seminario nor did he obtain an audience with the Pope to present his print in person .

Monteverdi may possibly have met the Pope already in 1607 in Mantua . This could explain why Monteverdi quoted his opera L’Orfeo,6 which had been performed for the first time that year in Mantua, in the vespers’ responsory and magnificat .

Monteverdi’s intention of travelling to Rome was probably also the motive for the publication of the mass and vespers, which might have been planned for a longer period of time, but had not yet been carried out . Casola’s first reference to the collection already

associates it with the trip to Rome (cf . above) . Publication most likely took place under considerable time pressure, since Casola mentions the work on the print in July as a novelty, the dedication is dated 1 September, and Monteverdi already had to leave for Rome shortly after this date . At any rate, such time pressure could explain certain discrepancies in the print of 1610, especially the existence of deviant versions of various pieces in the basso continuo score (see below) – which are presumably earlier – as well as a larger number of printing errors .

Whether a “premiere performance” of all or some of the pieces took place before the collec tion went to press is unknown . While it seems more plausible in the case of the mass that it was created especially for this publication, the instruments employed in the three movements with ob bligato instruments (Nos . 1, 11 and 13) vary considerably, which allows for the assumption that at least some of these pieces were composed for different occasions,7 with instrumentation specifically tailored to the particular performance situations . Differing versions of the basso continuo and the vocal parts in no less than five pieces allow the assumption that exist ing pieces were revised .

However, church music did not actually belong to Monteverdi’s vocational obligations in Mantua, but this does not rule out that he also took part in church music performances at important festivities .8 Various hypotheses on the occasion and purpose of the compositions have been brought forward in the last fifty years, none of which could be supported by any documentary evidence at all up until now .9 No performances can be verified for Monteverdi’s Venetian period either (although we can at least safely assume that individual sections were per formed) . By contrast, when Monteverdi applied for the position of maestro di cappella at San Marco in Venice, the 1610 print was surely an essential argument for actually entrusting him with the position .10

1 For the complete title cf . Critical Report . 2 The mass and the second “small” version of the Magnificat are not part of the

present edition . However, they are available separately from the same publishing house: Carus 40 .670 und 27 .205 .

3 In the original: “Il Monteverdi fa stampare una Messa da Cappella a sei voci di studio et fatica grande, essendosi obligato maneggiar sempre in ogni nota per tutte le vie, sempre più rinforzando le otto fughe che sono nel motetto, in illo tempore del Gomberti e fà stampare unitamente ancora di Salmi del Vespro della Madonna, con varie et diverse maniere d’inventioni et armonia, et tutte sopra il canto fermo, con pensiero di venirsene a Roma questo Autumno, per dedicarli a Sua Santità .” This letter was first published by Emil Vogel, “Claudio Monteverdi . Leben und Wirken im Lichte der zeitgenössischen Kritik und Verzeichnis seiner Werke,” in: Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft 3 (1887), p . 430 . The letter has been cited often in literature on the Vespers .

4 Cf . Uwe Wolf, Notation und Aufführungspraxis. Studien zum Wandel von Notenschrift und Notenbild in italienischen Musikdrucken der Jahre 1571−1630, Kassel, 1992, vol . I, p . 44ff .

5 One must consider that at the time, music prints could only be produced in a few locations . Monteverdi’s collection appeared in the very center of music publica-tion, in one of the large printing offices of Venice (Riccardo Amandino) . From there, the copies first had to reach Monteverdi .

6 Jeffrey Kurtzman, The Monteverdi Vespers of 1610. Music, Context, Performance, Oxford, 1999, p . 14 . The Pope was staying in Mantua in May 1607 . The performance of L'Orfeo had already occurred in February of 1607, but it still could have been a topic at the court .

7 For example, the absence of a third cornetto part in the responsory (the part of the first viola would match perfectly) is just as difficult to explain as the absence of violas in the Sonata and the Magnificat .

8 Cf . among others John Whenham, Monteverdi: Vespers 1610, Cambridge, 1997, p . 29ff .

9 Various theses are summarized by Kurtzman 1999, p . 11ff .10 A Venetian document mentions that not only the test pieces Monteverdi per-

formed, but also his printed works spoke for his election (cf . Whenham, 1997, p . 40 and Kurtzman, 1999, p . 52f) . We can presume with certainty that only church works were consulted . Aside from the early three-voice pieces Sacrae cantiunculae (1582) und the print of 1610, Monteverdi had not published any sacred works .

Carus 27.801 XV

For a long period of time, Gottfried Wolters’ edition (1966) of the complete vesper section of the print (with only the Magnificat à 7) was authoritative for musical practice .34 Wolters’ edition is the first which contains critical remarks, albeit incomplete . The note values and the meters are still subject to drastic changes . Although the score only contains the original instrumental voices, Wolters supplied a full orchestration of the entire Vesper within the part material, as was the case in many editions . Fortunately, he retained the historical instrumentation to a large extent . Liturgical supplements (antiphons) are mentioned in an appendix . Wolters’ edition has influenced the transmission of the Vespers as no other . With Clifford Bartlett’s edition of 1986 (rev . 1990/201035), a new series of critical editions based on the source was initiated . However, the musical substance was alienated anew, due to problematical hypotheses (cf . transpositions and triplet transcription in the sonata, as mentioned below) . On the other hand, problems of the 1610 print are left unsolved, and are passed on to performers due to exaggerated adherence to the source .37 Three new editions have also appeared in the 21st century (the present one is the fourth) . Among these, Antonio Delfino’s38 new edition, which has been published within the framework of the new com plete edition of Monteverdi’s works (2005), deserves mention . It is the first (and only) edition up until now which meets up to modern expectations of a critical edition, especially in its treatment of the historical material handed down to us and in its objective rendition of the musical text . On the other hand, the shortened forms of triple meter (transformed into sextuplets) in Delfino’s edition are disturbing and no longer up-to-date; these result from the obsolete guidelines of the Monteverdi edition .

Editorial Principles of this Volume

Our edition follows the print of 1610 as closely as possible . In order to establish the most valid reading of the print, several – not entirely identical – copies were consulted which vary with respect to the preserved condition, print quality, and musical variants . Instrumentation, time signatures, and note values are rendered unaltered (in the case of deviations in time signatures in some passages we have followed that indication which is in the majority) . Accidentals have been interpolated as necessary . Missing acciden-tals which are nevertheless imperative have been added in normal-sized print, and are listed in the critical remarks . Accidentals which appear to be sensible, but are not necessarily compel ling, have been added in small print . In order to correct passages which are obviously errone ous, handwritten emendations in extant prints of the seventeenth century have been consulted .

The print of 1610 does not contain any (printed) bar-lines; only in the basso continuo score is the musical text subdivided by lines at irregular intervals (whole notes, breves, or larger) . We have set bar-lines according to the meter of the age (2/2 meter in common time, 3/2 and 3/1 time) . This bar-line allocation not only corresponds to the “beat” according to music theory of the time, but also agrees with measure numbers which were added by hand during longer pauses in vari ous printed copies . We have consciously foregone adding further interpretational features, such as proportional parameters, metronome markings, figuration of the basso continuo, and the like .

In preparing the parts, we have paid heed to do justice to the most variegated needs imaginable, in order to offer material fitting for performances which utilize smaller choral groups after the manner

of the seventeenth century, and for the larger choirs prevalent today . Instrumental parts for the pieces possibly performed colla parte always contain material for the entire movement (at times with two alternative voices) . The verse numbers which have been specified throughout should facilitate instrumentation and diction in rehearsals . Scoring suggestions may be found on p . 153ff . of this volume .

Specific Problems of Notation, Publication and Performance Practice

The Instruments

The 1610 print only specifies obbligato instruments by name for Nos . 1, 11 and 13 . In addi tion, the “Ritornelle” of No . 2 for six voices and No . 12 for five voices possess no concrete designations for the instruments . The scoring for pieces with a fixed instrumentation differs clearly from one another, as does the distribution of the instruments in the part-books of the print (cf . table, p . XVI) .

With respect to several instrument names which Monteverdi employed, the instruments he meant cannot always be positively identified . This applies especially to the bass instrument of the violin family (in the 1610 print: “Viuola da brazzo,” more precisely in the score of Orfeo [1609]: “Basso di Viola da braccio”) . It seems likely that this is an instrument related to our violon cello, probably even one that is in its direct developmental line . The term “violoncello” is not verifiable for the year 1610, however instruments which are comparable to the violoncello have been preserved for the late sixteenth century .38 In our edition, we have denoted this part as “Violoncello .”

On the other hand, the term “Contrabasso da gamba” most likely describes a 16-foot violone which belongs to the viol family, just as our modern double bass does . In correspondence with this, the term “Violone” has also been used in this edition .

The “Flauti,” found only in the Magnificat à 7 (No . 13c), are most certainly recorders (range: f1 to a2) . The “Fifari” (g1 to g2) called for in the same piece are more difficult to ascertain . The two voices are named differently in the print of 1610: “Fifara” in the Altus partbook, and “Pifara” in the Tenor . Both names were used in a general sense for wind instruments; when used spe cifically, they designated traverse flute (Fifara) and the shawm (Pifara) . We have chosen “Fifara .” The range can be played well on a Renaissance traverse flute, although the single-octave range could also indicate an instrument which could not be overblown . As mentioned, large differences exist between the pieces with respect to the number and type of instruments, indicating different original contexts .

34 Claudio Monteverdi, Vesperae beatae Mariae virgini. Marien­Vesper 1610, ed . by Gottfried Wolters, Wolfenbüttel and Zürich, 1966 .

35 Monteverdi, Vespers (1610), revised editions 1990 and 2010, respectively, ed . by Clifford Bartlett, Huntingdon, 1990 and 2010 .

36 For example, many incongruities still remain in the edition: Claudio Monteverdi, Vespro della beata Vergini da concerto, composto sopra canti fermi SV 206, ed . by Jerome Roche, London et al ., 1994, such as rhythmic deviations between the bass and the basso continuo, or divergent mensural notational signs and time signatures .

37 Claudio Monteverdi, Missa da capella a sei. Vespro della Beata Vergine, editione critica di Antonio Delfino, Cremona 2005 (Claudio Monteverdi: Opera Omnia . Edizione nazionale a cura della Fondazione Claudio Monteverdi, Volume nono) .

38 Cf . for instance H . von Loesch, article “Violoncello,” in: MGG2, Sachteil, vol . 9 (1998), col . 1686ff, 1998 .

Carus 27.801XIV

of music .21 Full scores are also extant for the Crucifixus of the mass, for Nos . 13g,and 13l . This part-book also contains short scores for Nos . 1 (two voices), 4 and 6 (three voices) . In our edition, we therefore generally refer to a “basso continuo score .” Incidentally, the “Bassus Generalis” is already labeled as the “Partitura del Monte verde” in its signature marks . In the organ part published within the performance material of this edition, we have followed the notation of the short score and print the staves of orientation as given in the original “basso continuo score”; in addition, we have supplemented the vocal texts which were not rendered in the original basso continuo score .

Liturgical Problems

In the monastic hours of prayer, vespers consists in essence of the responsory, five psalms, which vary according to the church festivals, and the Magnificat . Other spoken texts may be added . Psalm and Magnificat are framed by antiphons (sung before and repeated after the psalm), which establishes a reference to the respective festivals .22 The psalm tone con forms to the tone of the antiphon; various cadential phrases (differentiae)23 of the psalm tones facilitate recon necting with the antiphon . For a long time, literature on Monteverdi’s Vespers has described the fact that no Marian festival exists with the psalm tone order which occurs in the print of 1610 . Numerous hypotheses fall into line with these findings, ranging from the assumption of special liturgies,23 via the assertion that tonal reference was no longer taken seriously in Monte verdi’s age, to the denial of liturgical unity, which prevails today .

Many indications, however, point to a liberal treatment of the psalm tones at least, although it is not entirely clear what this means in detail . Apparently, the differentiae24 were no longer in use . Collections exist which allegedly offer material for all of the high festivals of the church year, containing all the psalms implemented in the vespers, but all using just one psalm tone25 apiece . Monteverdi also uses final cadences for the psalm tones which were apparently the only ones remaining . He sometimes employs the liturgical tones at different levels – at the beginning and end of the psalm as well – making a coherent return to the antiphon impossible .26 In his overview of vespers for the church year, Adriano Banchieri lists only psalm tones27 which vary from festival to festival for the magnificat, additionally underscoring the apparently slight signific ance of the psalm tones (and hence for the antiphons as well?) .

The position of the concerti between the psalms is most often explained with the explanation that instead of a repetition of the antiphon these concerti were performed as subsitutions . This theory has been reinforced by accounts of Vespers in wich motets were performed between the psalms . However, accounts of vesper services in which motets were performed between the psalms28 must not inevitably be interpreted as documentary evidence that they were substituted for the anti phons . This could have been a practice which was not “liturgical” in a narrower sense of the word, since vespers of the early seventeenth century were nearly concert-like in character . This might possibly explain more conclusively why Monteverdi exemplarily placed concerti between the psalms than the idea of antiphon substitution .29 In principle, one can only regret the lack of research on liturgical practices at this point, without which a solution ultimately cannot be given .

By now, the majority of researchers assumes that the vespers part of the 1610 print cannot be viewed as a liturgical entity for which a contemporary performance can be postulated .30 But rather, Monteverdi would have expected individual sections to be performed in different contexts . The fact that Monteverdi broke with the custom of placing the concerti in a separate section of the print – in addition to the order of psalms and the magnificat in their liturgical succession customary in prints of the vespers – and set them between the psalms instead, could indicate an intended order of performance . This, in turn, should be understood as “exemplary” and not as an actual “performance unit .”

Editions of the Vespers – an Historical Overview

Over the course of the years, the Vespers of the Blessed Virgin have been the subject of more editions than any other seventeenth-century composition . Carl von Winterfeld31 was the first researcher to publish isolated examples . Gian Francesco Malipiero brought out the first edition of the complete collection in 193232; it appeared within the complete edition of Monteverdi’s works, of which he was the general editor . It was not an academic edition by today’s stan dards . No critical remarks were given, and only a few footnotes make reference to grave devi ations from the source . The numerous mistakes in the musical text are partially a result of the edi tor’s alterations, and even more so of misinterpretations of the historical evidence handed down to us . Nevertheless, his edition was the starting point for a series of editions (which fre quently adopted Malipiero’s mistakes, as must be admitted) . Practical editions followed, which were often marked by encroachments of various kinds: re-instrumentation, abridgements, rearrangements, and transcriptions of the late mensural notation, which seems absurd to us today . Simultaneously, editors begin to omit parts of the print of 1610 (concerti) or amend it (antiphons); in both cases, the goal is the construction of a liturgical vespers .33

21 The score has no text, since a separate vocal part exists; by contrast, secular monodic music was only published in score form .

22 Cf . Whenham, 1997, p . 8ff . on the structure of the vesper service after the reforms of the Council of Trent .

23 The most prominent example is Graham Dixon’s hypothesis that the vesper is actually not in honor of the Virgin Mary, but was composed for St . Barbara of Mantua, following a special liturgical form for Mantua (“Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610: „della Beata Vergine“?,” in Early Music 15 [1987], pp . 386−89) . This view must primarily be countered with the argument that a vesper according to Mantuan liturgy would hardly have been fitting for a dedication to the Pope, and probably not even for publication .

24 Whenham 1997, p . 22; Pietro Pontio, Ragionamento di musica, Parma, 1588, re-print, Suzanne Clercx (ed .), Kassel et al ., 1959 (Documenta Musicologica, I:XVI), p . 97f .

25 For example, Giovanni Giacomo Gastoldi, Psalmi ad vesperas in totius anni solemnitatibus, Venice, 1588, 21592; Adriano Banchieri, Salmi festivi intieri, coristi, allegri, et moderni, Venice, 1613 . Cf . also Whenham, 1997, p . 15 .

26 For details, cf . Whenham, 1997, p . 60ff .27 Adriano Banchieri, L’Organo Suonarino, Venice, 11605, reprint, Amsterdam (to-

gether with the editions of 1611 and 1638), n .d . (Bibliotheca Organologica, XXVII) . In the “Norma a gli organisti” (p . 118ff .), only the hymn and the mag-nificat tones in both vespers are named for the various feasts .

28 Whenham, 1997, p . 20 . Banchieri refers to organ playing between the psalms (L’Organo Suonarino, Venice, 21611, p . 45 of the facsimile edition, see footnote 27) .

29 Cf . also Whenham, 1997, p . 19 .30 Ibid ., p . 2, and Kurtzman, 1999, p . 39 .31 Carl von Winterfeld, Johannes Gabrieli und sein Zeitalter, Berlin, 1834, reprint,

Hildesheim 1965, vol . III, p . 112f . (Dixit Dominus) and p . 114f . (Deposuit of Magnificat a 7) .

32 Monteverdi Opere, vol . XIV, parts 1 and 2 .33 For information on editions up to 1999, cf . Kurtzman, 1999, p . 15ff .

Carus 27.801 XV

For a long period of time, Gottfried Wolters’ edition (1966) of the complete vesper section of the print (with only the Magnificat à 7) was authoritative for musical practice .34 Wolters’ edition is the first which contains critical remarks, albeit incomplete . The note values and the meters are still subject to drastic changes . Although the score only contains the original instrumental voices, Wolters supplied a full orchestration of the entire Vesper within the part material, as was the case in many editions . Fortunately, he retained the historical instrumentation to a large extent . Liturgical supplements (antiphons) are mentioned in an appendix . Wolters’ edition has influenced the transmission of the Vespers as no other . With Clifford Bartlett’s edition of 1986 (rev . 1990/201035), a new series of critical editions based on the source was initiated . However, the musical substance was alienated anew, due to problematical hypotheses (cf . transpositions and triplet transcription in the sonata, as mentioned below) . On the other hand, problems of the 1610 print are left unsolved, and are passed on to performers due to exaggerated adherence to the source .37 Three new editions have also appeared in the 21st century (the present one is the fourth) . Among these, Antonio Delfino’s38 new edition, which has been published within the framework of the new com plete edition of Monteverdi’s works (2005), deserves mention . It is the first (and only) edition up until now which meets up to modern expectations of a critical edition, especially in its treatment of the historical material handed down to us and in its objective rendition of the musical text . On the other hand, the shortened forms of triple meter (transformed into sextuplets) in Delfino’s edition are disturbing and no longer up-to-date; these result from the obsolete guidelines of the Monteverdi edition .

Editorial Principles of this Volume

Our edition follows the print of 1610 as closely as possible . In order to establish the most valid reading of the print, several – not entirely identical – copies were consulted which vary with respect to the preserved condition, print quality, and musical variants . Instrumentation, time signatures, and note values are rendered unaltered (in the case of deviations in time signatures in some passages we have followed that indication which is in the majority) . Accidentals have been interpolated as necessary . Missing acciden-tals which are nevertheless imperative have been added in normal-sized print, and are listed in the critical remarks . Accidentals which appear to be sensible, but are not necessarily compel ling, have been added in small print . In order to correct passages which are obviously errone ous, handwritten emendations in extant prints of the seventeenth century have been consulted .

The print of 1610 does not contain any (printed) bar-lines; only in the basso continuo score is the musical text subdivided by lines at irregular intervals (whole notes, breves, or larger) . We have set bar-lines according to the meter of the age (2/2 meter in common time, 3/2 and 3/1 time) . This bar-line allocation not only corresponds to the “beat” according to music theory of the time, but also agrees with measure numbers which were added by hand during longer pauses in vari ous printed copies . We have consciously foregone adding further interpretational features, such as proportional parameters, metronome markings, figuration of the basso continuo, and the like .

In preparing the parts, we have paid heed to do justice to the most variegated needs imaginable, in order to offer material fitting for performances which utilize smaller choral groups after the manner

of the seventeenth century, and for the larger choirs prevalent today . Instrumental parts for the pieces possibly performed colla parte always contain material for the entire movement (at times with two alternative voices) . The verse numbers which have been specified throughout should facilitate instrumentation and diction in rehearsals . Scoring suggestions may be found on p . 153ff . of this volume .

Specific Problems of Notation, Publication and Performance Practice

The Instruments

The 1610 print only specifies obbligato instruments by name for Nos . 1, 11 and 13 . In addi tion, the “Ritornelle” of No . 2 for six voices and No . 12 for five voices possess no concrete designations for the instruments . The scoring for pieces with a fixed instrumentation differs clearly from one another, as does the distribution of the instruments in the part-books of the print (cf . table, p . XVI) .

With respect to several instrument names which Monteverdi employed, the instruments he meant cannot always be positively identified . This applies especially to the bass instrument of the violin family (in the 1610 print: “Viuola da brazzo,” more precisely in the score of Orfeo [1609]: “Basso di Viola da braccio”) . It seems likely that this is an instrument related to our violon cello, probably even one that is in its direct developmental line . The term “violoncello” is not verifiable for the year 1610, however instruments which are comparable to the violoncello have been preserved for the late sixteenth century .38 In our edition, we have denoted this part as “Violoncello .”

On the other hand, the term “Contrabasso da gamba” most likely describes a 16-foot violone which belongs to the viol family, just as our modern double bass does . In correspondence with this, the term “Violone” has also been used in this edition .

The “Flauti,” found only in the Magnificat à 7 (No . 13c), are most certainly recorders (range: f1 to a2) . The “Fifari” (g1 to g2) called for in the same piece are more difficult to ascertain . The two voices are named differently in the print of 1610: “Fifara” in the Altus partbook, and “Pifara” in the Tenor . Both names were used in a general sense for wind instruments; when used spe cifically, they designated traverse flute (Fifara) and the shawm (Pifara) . We have chosen “Fifara .” The range can be played well on a Renaissance traverse flute, although the single-octave range could also indicate an instrument which could not be overblown . As mentioned, large differences exist between the pieces with respect to the number and type of instruments, indicating different original contexts .

34 Claudio Monteverdi, Vesperae beatae Mariae virgini. Marien­Vesper 1610, ed . by Gottfried Wolters, Wolfenbüttel and Zürich, 1966 .

35 Monteverdi, Vespers (1610), revised editions 1990 and 2010, respectively, ed . by Clifford Bartlett, Huntingdon, 1990 and 2010 .

36 For example, many incongruities still remain in the edition: Claudio Monteverdi, Vespro della beata Vergini da concerto, composto sopra canti fermi SV 206, ed . by Jerome Roche, London et al ., 1994, such as rhythmic deviations between the bass and the basso continuo, or divergent mensural notational signs and time signatures .

37 Claudio Monteverdi, Missa da capella a sei. Vespro della Beata Vergine, editione critica di Antonio Delfino, Cremona 2005 (Claudio Monteverdi: Opera Omnia . Edizione nazionale a cura della Fondazione Claudio Monteverdi, Volume nono) .

38 Cf . for instance H . von Loesch, article “Violoncello,” in: MGG2, Sachteil, vol . 9 (1998), col . 1686ff, 1998 .

Carus 27.801XIV

of music .21 Full scores are also extant for the Crucifixus of the mass, for Nos . 13g,and 13l . This part-book also contains short scores for Nos . 1 (two voices), 4 and 6 (three voices) . In our edition, we therefore generally refer to a “basso continuo score .” Incidentally, the “Bassus Generalis” is already labeled as the “Partitura del Monte verde” in its signature marks . In the organ part published within the performance material of this edition, we have followed the notation of the short score and print the staves of orientation as given in the original “basso continuo score”; in addition, we have supplemented the vocal texts which were not rendered in the original basso continuo score .

Liturgical Problems

In the monastic hours of prayer, vespers consists in essence of the responsory, five psalms, which vary according to the church festivals, and the Magnificat . Other spoken texts may be added . Psalm and Magnificat are framed by antiphons (sung before and repeated after the psalm), which establishes a reference to the respective festivals .22 The psalm tone con forms to the tone of the antiphon; various cadential phrases (differentiae)23 of the psalm tones facilitate recon necting with the antiphon . For a long time, literature on Monteverdi’s Vespers has described the fact that no Marian festival exists with the psalm tone order which occurs in the print of 1610 . Numerous hypotheses fall into line with these findings, ranging from the assumption of special liturgies,23 via the assertion that tonal reference was no longer taken seriously in Monte verdi’s age, to the denial of liturgical unity, which prevails today .

Many indications, however, point to a liberal treatment of the psalm tones at least, although it is not entirely clear what this means in detail . Apparently, the differentiae24 were no longer in use . Collections exist which allegedly offer material for all of the high festivals of the church year, containing all the psalms implemented in the vespers, but all using just one psalm tone25 apiece . Monteverdi also uses final cadences for the psalm tones which were apparently the only ones remaining . He sometimes employs the liturgical tones at different levels – at the beginning and end of the psalm as well – making a coherent return to the antiphon impossible .26 In his overview of vespers for the church year, Adriano Banchieri lists only psalm tones27 which vary from festival to festival for the magnificat, additionally underscoring the apparently slight signific ance of the psalm tones (and hence for the antiphons as well?) .

The position of the concerti between the psalms is most often explained with the explanation that instead of a repetition of the antiphon these concerti were performed as subsitutions . This theory has been reinforced by accounts of Vespers in wich motets were performed between the psalms . However, accounts of vesper services in which motets were performed between the psalms28 must not inevitably be interpreted as documentary evidence that they were substituted for the anti phons . This could have been a practice which was not “liturgical” in a narrower sense of the word, since vespers of the early seventeenth century were nearly concert-like in character . This might possibly explain more conclusively why Monteverdi exemplarily placed concerti between the psalms than the idea of antiphon substitution .29 In principle, one can only regret the lack of research on liturgical practices at this point, without which a solution ultimately cannot be given .

By now, the majority of researchers assumes that the vespers part of the 1610 print cannot be viewed as a liturgical entity for which a contemporary performance can be postulated .30 But rather, Monteverdi would have expected individual sections to be performed in different contexts . The fact that Monteverdi broke with the custom of placing the concerti in a separate section of the print – in addition to the order of psalms and the magnificat in their liturgical succession customary in prints of the vespers – and set them between the psalms instead, could indicate an intended order of performance . This, in turn, should be understood as “exemplary” and not as an actual “performance unit .”

Editions of the Vespers – an Historical Overview

Over the course of the years, the Vespers of the Blessed Virgin have been the subject of more editions than any other seventeenth-century composition . Carl von Winterfeld31 was the first researcher to publish isolated examples . Gian Francesco Malipiero brought out the first edition of the complete collection in 193232; it appeared within the complete edition of Monteverdi’s works, of which he was the general editor . It was not an academic edition by today’s stan dards . No critical remarks were given, and only a few footnotes make reference to grave devi ations from the source . The numerous mistakes in the musical text are partially a result of the edi tor’s alterations, and even more so of misinterpretations of the historical evidence handed down to us . Nevertheless, his edition was the starting point for a series of editions (which fre quently adopted Malipiero’s mistakes, as must be admitted) . Practical editions followed, which were often marked by encroachments of various kinds: re-instrumentation, abridgements, rearrangements, and transcriptions of the late mensural notation, which seems absurd to us today . Simultaneously, editors begin to omit parts of the print of 1610 (concerti) or amend it (antiphons); in both cases, the goal is the construction of a liturgical vespers .33

21 The score has no text, since a separate vocal part exists; by contrast, secular monodic music was only published in score form .

22 Cf . Whenham, 1997, p . 8ff . on the structure of the vesper service after the reforms of the Council of Trent .

23 The most prominent example is Graham Dixon’s hypothesis that the vesper is actually not in honor of the Virgin Mary, but was composed for St . Barbara of Mantua, following a special liturgical form for Mantua (“Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610: „della Beata Vergine“?,” in Early Music 15 [1987], pp . 386−89) . This view must primarily be countered with the argument that a vesper according to Mantuan liturgy would hardly have been fitting for a dedication to the Pope, and probably not even for publication .

24 Whenham 1997, p . 22; Pietro Pontio, Ragionamento di musica, Parma, 1588, re-print, Suzanne Clercx (ed .), Kassel et al ., 1959 (Documenta Musicologica, I:XVI), p . 97f .

25 For example, Giovanni Giacomo Gastoldi, Psalmi ad vesperas in totius anni solemnitatibus, Venice, 1588, 21592; Adriano Banchieri, Salmi festivi intieri, coristi, allegri, et moderni, Venice, 1613 . Cf . also Whenham, 1997, p . 15 .

26 For details, cf . Whenham, 1997, p . 60ff .27 Adriano Banchieri, L’Organo Suonarino, Venice, 11605, reprint, Amsterdam (to-

gether with the editions of 1611 and 1638), n .d . (Bibliotheca Organologica, XXVII) . In the “Norma a gli organisti” (p . 118ff .), only the hymn and the mag-nificat tones in both vespers are named for the various feasts .

28 Whenham, 1997, p . 20 . Banchieri refers to organ playing between the psalms (L’Organo Suonarino, Venice, 21611, p . 45 of the facsimile edition, see footnote 27) .

29 Cf . also Whenham, 1997, p . 19 .30 Ibid ., p . 2, and Kurtzman, 1999, p . 39 .31 Carl von Winterfeld, Johannes Gabrieli und sein Zeitalter, Berlin, 1834, reprint,

Hildesheim 1965, vol . III, p . 112f . (Dixit Dominus) and p . 114f . (Deposuit of Magnificat a 7) .

32 Monteverdi Opere, vol . XIV, parts 1 and 2 .33 For information on editions up to 1999, cf . Kurtzman, 1999, p . 15ff .

Carus 27.801 XVII

The assertion that the voices and instruments are notated in an unusually high range can be safely viewed as a legend . The ambitus remains within the framework found elsewhere, even in the high voices of Cornetto I/II and Violin I/II .45 The true problem of Monteverdi’s vocal parts is the huge range (for example, G to f1 in the bass), which cannot be solved by transposition . This can be traced to the widespread technique of singing in falsetto .46

However, in order to meet the needs of today’s performance prac tice, as a supplement to this edition Lauda Jerusalem and Magnificat are also available sepa rately – with complete perform-ance material – transposed down a fourth .

Falsobordone Notation

The vocal parts of the responsory and a few verse halves of Nos . 2 and 6 are notated as choral recitation in the manner of falsobordone . In the parts of 1610 for the responsory, only the basso continuo possesses rhythmical notation and text . In our edition, this rhythmic structure has also been assigned to the voices . In the falsobordone of No . 2, the case arises that individual voices are notated rhythmically at the beginning because they change tones . We have also assigned these rhythmical structures to all of the voices, while adhering to the falsobordone notation thereafter .

Questions of Scoring

Choir and SoloistsIn preparing his collection for print in 1610, Monteverdi did not orient himself to a specific ensemble, but rather, to Italy’s professional sacred ensembles – a relatively heterogeneous target group . Given this large audience, Monteverdi’s print makes an unusually great number of stipulations – with respect to the instruments, for instance . Only very few church music prints of the time call for such a colorful ensemble, although they existed (and evidence for this is not just provided by Monteverdi’s print alone) . For Monteverdi, opening up a variety of possibilities would also have been more important than strategic commercial considerations .47

Performance practice varied in the seventeenth century from place to place, and performances conformed with particular local circumstances . Observing specific dispositional prerequisites, as they have been discussed in our time (such as the hypothesis of the soloistic realization of choral settings in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), was entirely foreign to this age: A decision for choir or for soloists was simply a question of the possibilities at hand . As far as we can say today, vocal ensembles with 15 to 25 singers – or a small choir – were the rule in Northern Italy .48 Treble voices were sung by boys, falsetto singers or castrati; the alto was also a male voice .49 The widespread technique of singing in falsetto partially led to a large ambitus in male voices, especially in higher ranges . We do not know whether the virtuosic vocal sections of the psalms were sung by soloists or by the choir . However, there are indications of this type of alternation in choral pieces (albeit not with Monteverdi) . The larger the choir, the more difficult it becomes to master virtuosic passages in tutti . Even today, particular local circumstances offer the best counsel for performance practice .

Colla parte Accompaniment in the PsalmsIn the Magnificat, Monteverdi gives us some insight into his conception of colla parte accompaniment . The first movement has registration which is reserved and affect-oriented, while the

entire instrumental section plays throughout the final movement . On the contrary, the third movement in “tutti,” Et misericordia, is entitled “a sei voce sole in Dialogo” and, consequently, forgoes the use of melody instruments . It forms a bridge to Laudate pueri with the subtitle “à 8 voci sole nel Organo .” With this, Monteverdi already clearly states that singing a cappella is one possible manner of performance; but nevertheless, it is not to be looked on as customary in general . The same is obviously true, in turn, for playing colla parte, although the references in the 1610 print mentioned above indicate that this tended to be the standard .

Ample evidence of widespread colla parte accompaniment in Italy around 1600 can also be found beyond the Vespers print . In addition, one can also substitute instruments for the vocal parts, an attractive possibility which is very seldom used today . Described occasionally in contemporary documents, this procedure in manifested in different forms in Heinrich Schütz’s Psalmen Davids (1619), a “German import” of Italian performance practice .50 For the very high voices of the high choirs, Schütz wrote that they were “primarily intended for cornetti and other instruments . But if singers are also available, it is much better .”51

Instrumentation of the Basso ContinuoThe 1610 print contains no explicit specifications for the basso continuo . Implicitly, the presence of registration in the Magnificat allows us to assume that the organ was used as a continuo instrument . However, other contemporary church music prints mention the organ expressly: In church music, the term basso per l’organo was used synonymously for basso continuo, and the prefaces of basso continuo parts were addressed to “alli honorati organisti”,52 or the like . In a church music context, the word “organ” means the church organ, and not a chest organ . The registration stipulations in the 1610 print confirm this . In specific cases, it is difficult to concretely determine which other instruments supported the organ . Several melodic bass instruments could be added, especially in polychoral church music scored for large performance groups . However,

45 Assertions to the contrary, especially those of Andrew Parrot, “Transposing in Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610,” in: Early Music 12 (1984), p . 490ff ., are simply erroneous; cf . Wolf, 1992, vol . I, p . 273, footnote 405 . Examples are included here in which transpositions downwards can be ruled out due to the very low bass range .

46 A wide tonal range additionally confirms a non-transposed register, since falsetto technique is only helpful when the ambitus has been extended upwards .

47 On presumable simplifications of instrumentation for commercial reasons, cf . Uwe Wolf, “…auff der rechten Musicalischen hohen Schule − Heinrich Schutz in Italien,” in: Ulrich Bartels (Ed .), Der Musiker und seine Reisen, Hildesheim, 2011, p . 54ff .

48 Lodovico Viadana makes very concrete dispositional specifications in his Salmi a quattro chori, Venice 1612 . He calls for no fewer than sixteen singers in the cappella alone, and for multiple singers in all other choirs aside from the Chor favorito (in mixed dispositions with voices and instruments) . The detailed speci-fications of the preface have been reprinted in the original Italian with a German translation in: L . Viadana, Magnificat sexti toni, ed . by Uwe Wolf, Stuttgart, 2000 (Carus 10 .371), p . 31f .

49 Kurtzman (1999, p . 376ff .) has reported on different sizes of performing groups in Italian ensembles, which have not yet been fully investigated .

50 In SWV 40 und 42–47, for example .51 Schriftstücke von Heinrich Schütz, Unter Verwendung der von Manfred Fechner

und Konstanze Kremtz nach den Quellen erarbeiteten Textübertragungen heraus-gegeben von Michael Heinemann, Cologne 2010 (Schütz­Dokumente, vol . 1), p . 74 . In the original: “meistentheils auff Zincken vnd andere Instrumente gerich-tet . Jedoch wann man auch Sänger dabei haben kann, ist so viel desto besser .” For his psalm compositions, Viadana recommended in 1612 (cf . footnote 48) that the soprano voice of the high choirs be realized exclusively with instruments (Cornetto, ò Violino) – regardless of whether they were set for a purely vocal context, or for voices and instruments .

52 Wolf, 1992, p . 183ff .

Carus 27.801XVI

In the 1610 print, the instruments were distri buted in the part-books in a manner which offered a reasonable solution for every individual piece . This is also true with regard to the combinations of vocal and instrumental parts in the respective books . However, their configuration also makes a “continuous performance” in the sense of a coherent vespers impossible – which was probably never intended . The following table lists the instruments of the pieces and their distribution among the part-books .

Instrument No. 1 No. 11 No. 13

Flauto I − − Altus

Flauto II − − Tenor

Fifara I − − Altus

Fifara II − − Tenor

Cornetto I Cantus Tenor Sextus

Cornetto II Sextus Quintus Altus

Cornetto III − − Tenor

Trombone I Tenor Septimus Sextus

Trombone II Quintus Bassus Altus

Trombone Basso Bassus − Tenor

Trombone doppio − Bassus −

Violino I Cantus Sextus Quintus

Violino II Sextus Altus Bassus

Viola I Altus − −

Viola II Tenor − −

Viola III Quintus − −

Violoncello I Bassus Septimus Septimus

Violoncello II − Septimus −

Violone Bassus − −

Chiavette/Transposition

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, a hypothesis arose which was the subject of widespread discussion, namely, that two parts of the Vespers (Lauda Jerusalem and Magnificat) notated in higher clefs called “chiavette” should be transposed downwards for performance .39 This points to a practice in sixteenth-century vocal music, in which the level of notation was chosen with reference to the mode and not to the pitch-level which sounded . Since pieces on the high modes of G, A, and C would have contained too many ledger lines, a different clef combination was used: the so-called high clef notation, or chiavette . In customary clef combination, voices were notated in soprano, alto, tenor and bass clefs (c1, c3, c4 and f4); in the chiavette, the clefs for violin, mezzo-soprano, alto and baritone were used (g2, c2, c3 and f3) .

Conversely, singers knew that they could expect a high range in a piece with this combination of clefs, and that the composition should be sung in a lower transposition . Organists and instru mentalists who played melody lines had to be proficient in transposing .40

Around 1600, the prerequisites changed in a variety of ways . On the one hand, a great expan sion of tonal range can be observed due to the use of high and low choirs in opulent polychoral music . Choirs in high and low clef combinations often sang simultaneously in polychoral music, sometimes in entirely new clef combinations . Additionally, the introduction of the basso continuo and obbligato instruments demanded a fixation of the absolute

pitch-level . In the early seventeenth century, music with basso continuo accompaniment still often contained expla nations for organists indicating the transposition option . Pieces even exist in which transposi tions for the continuo part are already provided, (or continuo parts at alternative pitch-levels) a fourth or fifth below the vocal part .41 It quickly becomes apparent that transposition is not necessarily linked to clef choice, since pieces with the same clef combination were not treated consis tently within a collection, or alternative pitch-levels are designated with suggestions for alternative dispositions .42 The wide spectrum we meet with in this respect in prints of the time testify to the fact that there can be no talk of “transposition automatism” by any means .

While transposition instructions of this kind were very widespread in vocal music with basso continuo accompaniment, they were seldom found in instrumental music, and did not appear in vocal-instrumental music at all . In the few cases in which the vocal parts were intended to be transposed, a transposition of the instrumental voices has already been carried out . While one could link up with the practice of transposing from the chiavette in the vocal parts, such a tradition is entirely lacking for the obbligato instruments . Indeed, the possibility of conveying a transposition by means of clef combinations does not even exist here: For example, violin parts are predominantly written in the treble clef at the beginning of the seventeenth cen tury, in contrast to the soprano voices .

These issues may already illustrate that an intended transposition of the pieces named – most especially of the Magnificat – is highly improbable, and cannot be presupposed, at the very least . Two other points dispel the last doubts: In the transposition downwards which is presumed, the ambitus of Cornetto III and Trombone II falls below the playable level . In the vocal parts, a transposition also causes more problems than it solves . For this reason, transposed editions often have to place notes an octave higher,43 since in fact, the range of the voices in pieces with high clefs differs from the range of the others only marginally .44 But one technical argu ment regarding notation is even more important: The chiavette owed their existence to attempts at avoiding ledger lines (higher than one line), since they were difficult to depict in letterpress print . For this reason, a high clef combination was also chosen for the voices in the 1610 print . However, this choice only solves the comparably slight problems in the vocal parts: In the instrumental parts, especially the violins and the cornets, realigning the clefs cannot circum vent the ledger lines produced by the high range . This situation caused great problems for the printer: The numerous ledger lines in high notation could hardly be mastered, and the graphic notation is barely legible in many places . (cf . facsimile) . In notation a fourth downwards much less trouble would have arisen . This would have been a compelling argument for lower notation, if a lower range were intended . The only imaginable reason for the arduous, high notation is that high sonorities were desired .

39 A partial use of chiavette clefs can be observed in sections of the hymn (outer voice: normal clef signature, middle voices in chiavette clef signatures) .

40 For a discussion of chiavette clefs in general, as well as different aspects affecting this problem cf . Wolf 1992, vol . 1, p . 270ff . Further literature is listed there .

41 Numerous examples in: Wolf, 1992, vol . 1, p . 274ff .42 Ibid .43 So in No . 10, m . 92, Alto II: last note g, transposed down a fourth d; in m . 97,

Alto I: f, transposed down a fourth c . In the edition Monteverdi, Vespro della Beata Vergine, ed . by Hendrik Schulze et al ., Kassel, 2013, these tones have been set an octave higher .

44 In No . 10 and No . 13, the peak tones a2 and a1 of the soprano and the tenor are seldom reached (thus, higher clefs are chosen for the sake of better legibility); in the remaining pieces, g2 and g1 are reached .

Carus 27.801 XVII

The assertion that the voices and instruments are notated in an unusually high range can be safely viewed as a legend . The ambitus remains within the framework found elsewhere, even in the high voices of Cornetto I/II and Violin I/II .45 The true problem of Monteverdi’s vocal parts is the huge range (for example, G to f1 in the bass), which cannot be solved by transposition . This can be traced to the widespread technique of singing in falsetto .46

However, in order to meet the needs of today’s performance prac tice, as a supplement to this edition Lauda Jerusalem and Magnificat are also available sepa rately – with complete perform-ance material – transposed down a fourth .

Falsobordone Notation

The vocal parts of the responsory and a few verse halves of Nos . 2 and 6 are notated as choral recitation in the manner of falsobordone . In the parts of 1610 for the responsory, only the basso continuo possesses rhythmical notation and text . In our edition, this rhythmic structure has also been assigned to the voices . In the falsobordone of No . 2, the case arises that individual voices are notated rhythmically at the beginning because they change tones . We have also assigned these rhythmical structures to all of the voices, while adhering to the falsobordone notation thereafter .

Questions of Scoring

Choir and SoloistsIn preparing his collection for print in 1610, Monteverdi did not orient himself to a specific ensemble, but rather, to Italy’s professional sacred ensembles – a relatively heterogeneous target group . Given this large audience, Monteverdi’s print makes an unusually great number of stipulations – with respect to the instruments, for instance . Only very few church music prints of the time call for such a colorful ensemble, although they existed (and evidence for this is not just provided by Monteverdi’s print alone) . For Monteverdi, opening up a variety of possibilities would also have been more important than strategic commercial considerations .47

Performance practice varied in the seventeenth century from place to place, and performances conformed with particular local circumstances . Observing specific dispositional prerequisites, as they have been discussed in our time (such as the hypothesis of the soloistic realization of choral settings in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), was entirely foreign to this age: A decision for choir or for soloists was simply a question of the possibilities at hand . As far as we can say today, vocal ensembles with 15 to 25 singers – or a small choir – were the rule in Northern Italy .48 Treble voices were sung by boys, falsetto singers or castrati; the alto was also a male voice .49 The widespread technique of singing in falsetto partially led to a large ambitus in male voices, especially in higher ranges . We do not know whether the virtuosic vocal sections of the psalms were sung by soloists or by the choir . However, there are indications of this type of alternation in choral pieces (albeit not with Monteverdi) . The larger the choir, the more difficult it becomes to master virtuosic passages in tutti . Even today, particular local circumstances offer the best counsel for performance practice .

Colla parte Accompaniment in the PsalmsIn the Magnificat, Monteverdi gives us some insight into his conception of colla parte accompaniment . The first movement has registration which is reserved and affect-oriented, while the

entire instrumental section plays throughout the final movement . On the contrary, the third movement in “tutti,” Et misericordia, is entitled “a sei voce sole in Dialogo” and, consequently, forgoes the use of melody instruments . It forms a bridge to Laudate pueri with the subtitle “à 8 voci sole nel Organo .” With this, Monteverdi already clearly states that singing a cappella is one possible manner of performance; but nevertheless, it is not to be looked on as customary in general . The same is obviously true, in turn, for playing colla parte, although the references in the 1610 print mentioned above indicate that this tended to be the standard .

Ample evidence of widespread colla parte accompaniment in Italy around 1600 can also be found beyond the Vespers print . In addition, one can also substitute instruments for the vocal parts, an attractive possibility which is very seldom used today . Described occasionally in contemporary documents, this procedure in manifested in different forms in Heinrich Schütz’s Psalmen Davids (1619), a “German import” of Italian performance practice .50 For the very high voices of the high choirs, Schütz wrote that they were “primarily intended for cornetti and other instruments . But if singers are also available, it is much better .”51

Instrumentation of the Basso ContinuoThe 1610 print contains no explicit specifications for the basso continuo . Implicitly, the presence of registration in the Magnificat allows us to assume that the organ was used as a continuo instrument . However, other contemporary church music prints mention the organ expressly: In church music, the term basso per l’organo was used synonymously for basso continuo, and the prefaces of basso continuo parts were addressed to “alli honorati organisti”,52 or the like . In a church music context, the word “organ” means the church organ, and not a chest organ . The registration stipulations in the 1610 print confirm this . In specific cases, it is difficult to concretely determine which other instruments supported the organ . Several melodic bass instruments could be added, especially in polychoral church music scored for large performance groups . However,

45 Assertions to the contrary, especially those of Andrew Parrot, “Transposing in Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610,” in: Early Music 12 (1984), p . 490ff ., are simply erroneous; cf . Wolf, 1992, vol . I, p . 273, footnote 405 . Examples are included here in which transpositions downwards can be ruled out due to the very low bass range .

46 A wide tonal range additionally confirms a non-transposed register, since falsetto technique is only helpful when the ambitus has been extended upwards .

47 On presumable simplifications of instrumentation for commercial reasons, cf . Uwe Wolf, “…auff der rechten Musicalischen hohen Schule − Heinrich Schutz in Italien,” in: Ulrich Bartels (Ed .), Der Musiker und seine Reisen, Hildesheim, 2011, p . 54ff .

48 Lodovico Viadana makes very concrete dispositional specifications in his Salmi a quattro chori, Venice 1612 . He calls for no fewer than sixteen singers in the cappella alone, and for multiple singers in all other choirs aside from the Chor favorito (in mixed dispositions with voices and instruments) . The detailed speci-fications of the preface have been reprinted in the original Italian with a German translation in: L . Viadana, Magnificat sexti toni, ed . by Uwe Wolf, Stuttgart, 2000 (Carus 10 .371), p . 31f .

49 Kurtzman (1999, p . 376ff .) has reported on different sizes of performing groups in Italian ensembles, which have not yet been fully investigated .

50 In SWV 40 und 42–47, for example .51 Schriftstücke von Heinrich Schütz, Unter Verwendung der von Manfred Fechner

und Konstanze Kremtz nach den Quellen erarbeiteten Textübertragungen heraus-gegeben von Michael Heinemann, Cologne 2010 (Schütz­Dokumente, vol . 1), p . 74 . In the original: “meistentheils auff Zincken vnd andere Instrumente gerich-tet . Jedoch wann man auch Sänger dabei haben kann, ist so viel desto besser .” For his psalm compositions, Viadana recommended in 1612 (cf . footnote 48) that the soprano voice of the high choirs be realized exclusively with instruments (Cornetto, ò Violino) – regardless of whether they were set for a purely vocal context, or for voices and instruments .

52 Wolf, 1992, p . 183ff .

Carus 27.801XVI

In the 1610 print, the instruments were distri buted in the part-books in a manner which offered a reasonable solution for every individual piece . This is also true with regard to the combinations of vocal and instrumental parts in the respective books . However, their configuration also makes a “continuous performance” in the sense of a coherent vespers impossible – which was probably never intended . The following table lists the instruments of the pieces and their distribution among the part-books .

Instrument No. 1 No. 11 No. 13

Flauto I − − Altus

Flauto II − − Tenor

Fifara I − − Altus

Fifara II − − Tenor

Cornetto I Cantus Tenor Sextus

Cornetto II Sextus Quintus Altus

Cornetto III − − Tenor

Trombone I Tenor Septimus Sextus

Trombone II Quintus Bassus Altus

Trombone Basso Bassus − Tenor

Trombone doppio − Bassus −

Violino I Cantus Sextus Quintus

Violino II Sextus Altus Bassus

Viola I Altus − −

Viola II Tenor − −

Viola III Quintus − −

Violoncello I Bassus Septimus Septimus

Violoncello II − Septimus −

Violone Bassus − −

Chiavette/Transposition

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, a hypothesis arose which was the subject of widespread discussion, namely, that two parts of the Vespers (Lauda Jerusalem and Magnificat) notated in higher clefs called “chiavette” should be transposed downwards for performance .39 This points to a practice in sixteenth-century vocal music, in which the level of notation was chosen with reference to the mode and not to the pitch-level which sounded . Since pieces on the high modes of G, A, and C would have contained too many ledger lines, a different clef combination was used: the so-called high clef notation, or chiavette . In customary clef combination, voices were notated in soprano, alto, tenor and bass clefs (c1, c3, c4 and f4); in the chiavette, the clefs for violin, mezzo-soprano, alto and baritone were used (g2, c2, c3 and f3) .

Conversely, singers knew that they could expect a high range in a piece with this combination of clefs, and that the composition should be sung in a lower transposition . Organists and instru mentalists who played melody lines had to be proficient in transposing .40

Around 1600, the prerequisites changed in a variety of ways . On the one hand, a great expan sion of tonal range can be observed due to the use of high and low choirs in opulent polychoral music . Choirs in high and low clef combinations often sang simultaneously in polychoral music, sometimes in entirely new clef combinations . Additionally, the introduction of the basso continuo and obbligato instruments demanded a fixation of the absolute

pitch-level . In the early seventeenth century, music with basso continuo accompaniment still often contained expla nations for organists indicating the transposition option . Pieces even exist in which transposi tions for the continuo part are already provided, (or continuo parts at alternative pitch-levels) a fourth or fifth below the vocal part .41 It quickly becomes apparent that transposition is not necessarily linked to clef choice, since pieces with the same clef combination were not treated consis tently within a collection, or alternative pitch-levels are designated with suggestions for alternative dispositions .42 The wide spectrum we meet with in this respect in prints of the time testify to the fact that there can be no talk of “transposition automatism” by any means .

While transposition instructions of this kind were very widespread in vocal music with basso continuo accompaniment, they were seldom found in instrumental music, and did not appear in vocal-instrumental music at all . In the few cases in which the vocal parts were intended to be transposed, a transposition of the instrumental voices has already been carried out . While one could link up with the practice of transposing from the chiavette in the vocal parts, such a tradition is entirely lacking for the obbligato instruments . Indeed, the possibility of conveying a transposition by means of clef combinations does not even exist here: For example, violin parts are predominantly written in the treble clef at the beginning of the seventeenth cen tury, in contrast to the soprano voices .

These issues may already illustrate that an intended transposition of the pieces named – most especially of the Magnificat – is highly improbable, and cannot be presupposed, at the very least . Two other points dispel the last doubts: In the transposition downwards which is presumed, the ambitus of Cornetto III and Trombone II falls below the playable level . In the vocal parts, a transposition also causes more problems than it solves . For this reason, transposed editions often have to place notes an octave higher,43 since in fact, the range of the voices in pieces with high clefs differs from the range of the others only marginally .44 But one technical argu ment regarding notation is even more important: The chiavette owed their existence to attempts at avoiding ledger lines (higher than one line), since they were difficult to depict in letterpress print . For this reason, a high clef combination was also chosen for the voices in the 1610 print . However, this choice only solves the comparably slight problems in the vocal parts: In the instrumental parts, especially the violins and the cornets, realigning the clefs cannot circum vent the ledger lines produced by the high range . This situation caused great problems for the printer: The numerous ledger lines in high notation could hardly be mastered, and the graphic notation is barely legible in many places . (cf . facsimile) . In notation a fourth downwards much less trouble would have arisen . This would have been a compelling argument for lower notation, if a lower range were intended . The only imaginable reason for the arduous, high notation is that high sonorities were desired .

39 A partial use of chiavette clefs can be observed in sections of the hymn (outer voice: normal clef signature, middle voices in chiavette clef signatures) .

40 For a discussion of chiavette clefs in general, as well as different aspects affecting this problem cf . Wolf 1992, vol . 1, p . 270ff . Further literature is listed there .

41 Numerous examples in: Wolf, 1992, vol . 1, p . 274ff .42 Ibid .43 So in No . 10, m . 92, Alto II: last note g, transposed down a fourth d; in m . 97,

Alto I: f, transposed down a fourth c . In the edition Monteverdi, Vespro della Beata Vergine, ed . by Hendrik Schulze et al ., Kassel, 2013, these tones have been set an octave higher .

44 In No . 10 and No . 13, the peak tones a2 and a1 of the soprano and the tenor are seldom reached (thus, higher clefs are chosen for the sake of better legibility); in the remaining pieces, g2 and g1 are reached .

Carus 27.801 XIX

far-reaching consequences for comprehending Monteverdi’s use of triple meters, since a triplet corresponds to the triple meter which follows, when it is held in strict proportion .

Different Triple metersAside from the triplets of the sonata, Monteverdi uses two different triple meters in the vespers section of the 1610 print: î time and ì time, to use modern terms . Normally, he simply places a “3” (cf . responsory)64 or the fraction î without a mensural notational sign at the beginning of these triple meters, as long as they are used within one and the same piece . The principle mensuration (î) only appears at the beginning of a piece . Monteverdi only sets a mensural notational sign together with the triple meter in Laudate pueri, here in the succession and then î . This is not entirely unique, but nevertheless quite unusual . However, he still switches to perfect mensuration, in which under certain circumstances notes lasting an entire measure can be notated without an augmentation dot; this should have called for the mensural notational sign ○ . Therefore, Monteverdi was either no longer entirely aware of the full meaning of the mensural notational signs, or they seem to have become insignificant .65

According to many statements, primarily from the first decades of the seventeenth century, various forms of triple meter were used to designate various tempo levels .66 If we assume a proportional interpretation (see the following table), 3/1-time would have been very slow and 3/2-time would have been twice as fast – just as fast as the 3/1-time of Laudate pueri, which is additionally diminuated with the sign . The time signature “3” of the responsory, which is only marked in some of the part-books, is also used as an abbreviation for ì; this triple meter would then once again be twice as fast as other forms of î (however, Monteverdi combines “3” and î in No . 1) .

Sequence ofmeters

Proportion ProportionalImplementation

No .

− î Sesquialtera (3:2) = î 2, 12, 13

− î Sesquialtera (3:2) +Dupla (2:1) = Tripla (3:1) = î 4

− î Sesquialtera (3:2) =î 5, 8, 9, 11

3 − Hemiola (triplet) 3

= 11

− ì(?) Tripla (?) =ì(?) 1

3− î 1:1

No differencein tempo

11

One measure of the triple meter in No . 2 would then last exactly four times as long as one measure of the triple meter in No . 1 . It becomes apparent that this type of proportional interpretation cannot lead to musically meaningful results . As a matter of fact, a strictly proportional interpretation of meter relationships obviously contradicts music theory and practice of the early seventeenth century .67 Many factors display that we cannot make any further headway with traditional proportional interpretations,68 such as: relative terms for tempo rates (“faster”), which were already

omnipresent in this age, the emergence of written tempo designations, numerous new types of meter – some of them being identical in proportion (É, ç, å), triplets spreading like wildfire and the breathtaking reduction of note values in duple meter,69 whereby the note values in the triple meters remained constant, more or less .

Monteverdi most certainly used the sign in No . 4 to accelerate the agitated triple meters of this psalm over against other ì meters; but tempi could not be marked numerically, one could only describe them as faster or slower, as Monteverdi’s contemporaries did . One cannot say with certainty whether Monteverdi chose î time in order to indicate a quicker triple meter, or whether he was differentiating once again between pieces in motet style (ì time) and non-motet style (î time) . Both constellations have been proven in many cases . It must be called to attention that the placement of mensural notational signs and time signatures was carried out with rather scant diligence in this print of 1610 (cf . Critical Report) .

In this edition, note values and time signatures have remained unchanged . This enables performers to gain a conception of the original sources and to seek a tempo relationship which is musically convincing .

Deviating Versions of the Basso Continuo Score

Apparently, the print of 1610 was produced in an extremely short time without very great accuracy . Aside from numerous errors (definitely more than usual), discrepancies – some of them very obvious – between the basso continuo score and other parts reflect this . Significant differences of this kind are found in Nos . 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9a; lesser divergences can be noted in other pieces .70 In earlier editions, these deviations were generally not taken into consideration, and at best, only a selection of them was included . At times, the two versions were even combined according to the editors’ discretion . Although one can gain the impression that the version in the parts is better elaborated in Nos . 3, 5, 7, and 9, the readings of the score seem to be superior in No . 4 . In this edition,

64 However, the markings in the part-books are inconsistent; cf . Critical Report .65 In his article “Some Reflection upon Notation and Proportion in Monteverdi’s

Mass and Vespers of 1610” (Music & Letters 73 [1992], p . 349f .), Roger Bowers quite correctly describes that this had become a common practice . Contrary to Bowers, music theory still held to the rules for a long time . In most prints for musical practice, a mensural notational sign was also either missing entirely, or the correct one was applied (a circle [tempus perfectus] or a with a dot [prolatio perfecta]) .

On the whole, Bowers attempts to locate the profound change in notation around 1600 at a much later date . This is difficult with respect to Monteverdi’s print, and it is completely out of the question when an overall assessment is made of music prints from ca . 1580 onwards . By 1605, all the essential innovations in notation had already taken place . After this point, the status quo of 1605 was gradually adopted at large, but principle modifications no longer came about in the seventeenth century or afterwards .

66 Wolf, 1992, vol . 1, p . 96ff .67 Analyzed in detail in: Wolf 1992, vol . 1, p . 82ff, among others .68 Occasionally, other proportional tempo relationships are named than the ones

found in the table . However, these are not based on any historical evidence whatsoever .

69 In 1590, 16th notes were still seldom; by 1605, 128th notes are already in use (cf . Uwe Wolf, Art . “Notation, VII .1,” in: MGG2 , 1998, subject index, vol . 7, col . 340) .

70 In the edition Schulze et al . 2013, p . XIII, the assertion has been made that Monteverdi intentionally allowed these deviations to be printed, so that the pieces might appear more conservative in the basso continuo score . However, a more conservative image is only remotely plausible in one of many cases (the beginning of Pulchra es) . This assumption does not lead any further in other places (and it is even improbable in the first case) .

Carus 27.801XVIII

Monteverdi had already specified bass instruments in his 1610 print,53 namely in the pieces with obbligato instruments; these should not be expanded additionally by the continuo group . For the concerti, we therefore suggest employing an organ and a theorbo or archlute, but without a melodic bass instrument .54 Nevertheless, a set of parts for melodic bass has been included for all pieces, in order to do justice to all performance situations .

A Second Basso Continuo in the Sonata?For the sonata, the cantus part contains a vocal line for soprano in short score notation together with a basso continuo voice . It seems self-evident that the continuous basso continuo should be understood to provide cue notes for the soprano to facilitate entries which lie far apart from one another . However, this would be an absolute exception; at the time, printers generally were not this considerate of musicians . Therefore, we have sought for an alternative interpretation for this notation – which can only be speculative without verbal statements on the subject, of course . A form of notation for “voice and basso continuo” was quite common in this age, but it was used in monodic music, in which singers presumably accompanied themselves . Prints with several such scores are also known to exist, in which three singers perform together and each accompanies himself, for instance .55 The scores of these prints then all contain the complete basso continuo, only supplemented with the particular voice called for .56 The presumption that a singer accompanied himself could also give an explanation for the unusual findings in the sonata . Monteverdi might even have had in mind that the singer should stand far apart from the instrumental group, making a separate basso continuo more important . In another vespers collection, Lodovico Viadana’s Salmi a quattro chori (Venice 1612), the same cantus firmus also appears in a vespers context, although actually foreign to the vespers: In the Sicut locutus est of a magnificat setting, it bears the explicit instruction “da nascato” (from a concealed place) .57

Questions Concerning Tempo

Duple Time: versus Around 1600 both time signatures were changing in meaning .59 Aside from their proper meanings = “alla semibreve” (one measure lasts one whole note = 2/2-time60) and = “alle breve” (one measure last one brevis = 2/1-time) these two signs were also used increasingly to differentiate styles (or “tempo worlds”) from one another: for the modern madrigal or concertante style, and for the conservative motet style, or stile antico . Parallel to this, the time signature “alla semibreve” begins to supplant the signature “alla breve” completely . Soon, musicians were only beating time “alla semibreve” for both and ; according to numerous statements of the period, the tempo chosen for was slower, and for it was faster .

In 1610, this development was coming to a close . Monteverdi differentiates clearly: By utilizing the time signature , he designates the mass as a work in stile antico . The rest of his pieces – vesper psalms, concerti, the sonata, the hymn (!) and the Magnificat – all bear the time signature , which was reserved for modern works . While the occasional appearance of in the mass can be dismissed as a printing error, the application of the time signatures in the basso continuo score for the Vespers originally seems to have had a purpose with respect to performance practice . Here, the hymn and the majority of the movements of the Magnificat are notated in or î; only the most virtuosic sections (13b, d, i, k and l) bear the

signature . With this, Monteverdi probably intended to indicate tempo differentiations in his earlier manuscript versions of the Magnificat’s individual pieces, which preceded the print . When the work went to print, he dismissed these in favor of the juxtaposition of “conservative” (mass) and “modern” (vespers) . As is so often the case in the basso continuo score, the older version remained uncorrected . The movements 13b, d and i in are additionally marked as slow pieces in the basso continuo score with the tempo designations “adagio” and “tardo .” This could be dispensed with for movements 13g and l, since these were rendered in a full score: The organist could then perceive the entire musical structure and the necessity for a slow tempo .

Triplets in the SonataFor a long period of time, the triplets in mm . 130–153 of the sonata have been a cause for some irritation, since the notes of the triplets appear to be quarter notes . However, a closer look at this passage reveals that we are dealing with blackened half notes, as the blackened whole notes clearly prove (cf . facsimile) . This kind of notation was used frequently in the early seventeenth century and described often in works of music theory; indeed, it was the most prevalent manner of notating triplets in this age . But initially, researchers were uncertain how to construe it, and interpreted the triplets as quarter notes . As a result, shortening the note values of the cantus – the only voice not notated in triplets – became inevitable . In more recent editions (since 1990), this notation has predominantly been correctly depicted, except for those by Kurtzman60 and Schulze et al .61 Kurtzman certainly recognized the blackened notation very well; but in keeping with Michael Praetorius, he interpreted it as sextuplets . This notation, primarily found in England in the early seventeenth century, applied a proportion of 6:1 (instead of 3:2 as triplets) against the white notes .62 However, sextuplets of this kind were not only unfamiliar in Italy, they were designated in an entirely different way (with a mensural notational sign) .63 Perusing Italian music prints of this period brings innumerable cases to light, which clearly support an interpretation with triplets . The correct reading of the triplets has

53 In No . 1, Trombone III, Violoncello und Violone run parallel with the basso con-tinuo, Violoncello II and Trombone doppio in No . 10 – partly in alternation –, and in No . 13, predominantly the Violoncello .

54 In the first half of the seventeenth century, it cannot be fundamentally assumed that a melodic bass constantly played parallel .

55 Extensive remarks on this problem in: Uwe Wolf, “Überlegungen zur Notation des Canto in Claudio Monteverdis Sonata sopra Sancta Maria – aufführungs-praktische und liturgische Konsequenzen,” in: Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 81 (1997), p . 61−66 . We know of prints of this kind by Bartolomeo Barbarino and Alessandro Grandi . The expressive goal mentioned is to make music “piu di un chittarone .”

56 For a facsimile example, cf . ibid ., p . 63 .57 New edition cf . footnote 48 .58 This development can only be portrayed very briefly here; in extenso in: Wolf

1992, vol . I, pp . 22−82 .59 Beating time in quadruple units was still unknown in the first half of the seven-

teenth century .60 Claudio Monteverdi, Vespro della Beata Vergine. Vesper (1610), ed . by Jeffrey

Kurtzman, Oxford 1999, p . 270f .61 Schulze et al . 2013, p . 123ff . The note values in the soprano are in keeping with

the original; the blackened half notes are interpreted as quarter notes, which means that a group of three quarter-note triplets lasts as long as a whole note here . The grouping “whole note + following half note” is only designated as blackened when a blackened whole note appears (without any rhythmical conse-quences) . Evidently, Monteverdi’s fairly normal notation has not been understood here .

62 On this, cf . Uwe Wolf, Der color (die Schwärzung) in der weißen Notation, in preparation .

63 Ibid .

Carus 27.801 XIX

far-reaching consequences for comprehending Monteverdi’s use of triple meters, since a triplet corresponds to the triple meter which follows, when it is held in strict proportion .

Different Triple metersAside from the triplets of the sonata, Monteverdi uses two different triple meters in the vespers section of the 1610 print: î time and ì time, to use modern terms . Normally, he simply places a “3” (cf . responsory)64 or the fraction î without a mensural notational sign at the beginning of these triple meters, as long as they are used within one and the same piece . The principle mensuration (î) only appears at the beginning of a piece . Monteverdi only sets a mensural notational sign together with the triple meter in Laudate pueri, here in the succession and then î . This is not entirely unique, but nevertheless quite unusual . However, he still switches to perfect mensuration, in which under certain circumstances notes lasting an entire measure can be notated without an augmentation dot; this should have called for the mensural notational sign ○ . Therefore, Monteverdi was either no longer entirely aware of the full meaning of the mensural notational signs, or they seem to have become insignificant .65

According to many statements, primarily from the first decades of the seventeenth century, various forms of triple meter were used to designate various tempo levels .66 If we assume a proportional interpretation (see the following table), 3/1-time would have been very slow and 3/2-time would have been twice as fast – just as fast as the 3/1-time of Laudate pueri, which is additionally diminuated with the sign . The time signature “3” of the responsory, which is only marked in some of the part-books, is also used as an abbreviation for ì; this triple meter would then once again be twice as fast as other forms of î (however, Monteverdi combines “3” and î in No . 1) .

Sequence ofmeters

Proportion ProportionalImplementation

No .

− î Sesquialtera (3:2) = î 2, 12, 13

− î Sesquialtera (3:2) +Dupla (2:1) = Tripla (3:1) = î 4

− î Sesquialtera (3:2) =î 5, 8, 9, 11

3 − Hemiola (triplet) 3

= 11

− ì(?) Tripla (?) =ì(?) 1

3− î 1:1

No differencein tempo

11

One measure of the triple meter in No . 2 would then last exactly four times as long as one measure of the triple meter in No . 1 . It becomes apparent that this type of proportional interpretation cannot lead to musically meaningful results . As a matter of fact, a strictly proportional interpretation of meter relationships obviously contradicts music theory and practice of the early seventeenth century .67 Many factors display that we cannot make any further headway with traditional proportional interpretations,68 such as: relative terms for tempo rates (“faster”), which were already

omnipresent in this age, the emergence of written tempo designations, numerous new types of meter – some of them being identical in proportion (É, ç, å), triplets spreading like wildfire and the breathtaking reduction of note values in duple meter,69 whereby the note values in the triple meters remained constant, more or less .

Monteverdi most certainly used the sign in No . 4 to accelerate the agitated triple meters of this psalm over against other ì meters; but tempi could not be marked numerically, one could only describe them as faster or slower, as Monteverdi’s contemporaries did . One cannot say with certainty whether Monteverdi chose î time in order to indicate a quicker triple meter, or whether he was differentiating once again between pieces in motet style (ì time) and non-motet style (î time) . Both constellations have been proven in many cases . It must be called to attention that the placement of mensural notational signs and time signatures was carried out with rather scant diligence in this print of 1610 (cf . Critical Report) .

In this edition, note values and time signatures have remained unchanged . This enables performers to gain a conception of the original sources and to seek a tempo relationship which is musically convincing .

Deviating Versions of the Basso Continuo Score

Apparently, the print of 1610 was produced in an extremely short time without very great accuracy . Aside from numerous errors (definitely more than usual), discrepancies – some of them very obvious – between the basso continuo score and other parts reflect this . Significant differences of this kind are found in Nos . 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9a; lesser divergences can be noted in other pieces .70 In earlier editions, these deviations were generally not taken into consideration, and at best, only a selection of them was included . At times, the two versions were even combined according to the editors’ discretion . Although one can gain the impression that the version in the parts is better elaborated in Nos . 3, 5, 7, and 9, the readings of the score seem to be superior in No . 4 . In this edition,

64 However, the markings in the part-books are inconsistent; cf . Critical Report .65 In his article “Some Reflection upon Notation and Proportion in Monteverdi’s

Mass and Vespers of 1610” (Music & Letters 73 [1992], p . 349f .), Roger Bowers quite correctly describes that this had become a common practice . Contrary to Bowers, music theory still held to the rules for a long time . In most prints for musical practice, a mensural notational sign was also either missing entirely, or the correct one was applied (a circle [tempus perfectus] or a with a dot [prolatio perfecta]) .

On the whole, Bowers attempts to locate the profound change in notation around 1600 at a much later date . This is difficult with respect to Monteverdi’s print, and it is completely out of the question when an overall assessment is made of music prints from ca . 1580 onwards . By 1605, all the essential innovations in notation had already taken place . After this point, the status quo of 1605 was gradually adopted at large, but principle modifications no longer came about in the seventeenth century or afterwards .

66 Wolf, 1992, vol . 1, p . 96ff .67 Analyzed in detail in: Wolf 1992, vol . 1, p . 82ff, among others .68 Occasionally, other proportional tempo relationships are named than the ones

found in the table . However, these are not based on any historical evidence whatsoever .

69 In 1590, 16th notes were still seldom; by 1605, 128th notes are already in use (cf . Uwe Wolf, Art . “Notation, VII .1,” in: MGG2 , 1998, subject index, vol . 7, col . 340) .

70 In the edition Schulze et al . 2013, p . XIII, the assertion has been made that Monteverdi intentionally allowed these deviations to be printed, so that the pieces might appear more conservative in the basso continuo score . However, a more conservative image is only remotely plausible in one of many cases (the beginning of Pulchra es) . This assumption does not lead any further in other places (and it is even improbable in the first case) .

Carus 27.801XVIII

Monteverdi had already specified bass instruments in his 1610 print,53 namely in the pieces with obbligato instruments; these should not be expanded additionally by the continuo group . For the concerti, we therefore suggest employing an organ and a theorbo or archlute, but without a melodic bass instrument .54 Nevertheless, a set of parts for melodic bass has been included for all pieces, in order to do justice to all performance situations .

A Second Basso Continuo in the Sonata?For the sonata, the cantus part contains a vocal line for soprano in short score notation together with a basso continuo voice . It seems self-evident that the continuous basso continuo should be understood to provide cue notes for the soprano to facilitate entries which lie far apart from one another . However, this would be an absolute exception; at the time, printers generally were not this considerate of musicians . Therefore, we have sought for an alternative interpretation for this notation – which can only be speculative without verbal statements on the subject, of course . A form of notation for “voice and basso continuo” was quite common in this age, but it was used in monodic music, in which singers presumably accompanied themselves . Prints with several such scores are also known to exist, in which three singers perform together and each accompanies himself, for instance .55 The scores of these prints then all contain the complete basso continuo, only supplemented with the particular voice called for .56 The presumption that a singer accompanied himself could also give an explanation for the unusual findings in the sonata . Monteverdi might even have had in mind that the singer should stand far apart from the instrumental group, making a separate basso continuo more important . In another vespers collection, Lodovico Viadana’s Salmi a quattro chori (Venice 1612), the same cantus firmus also appears in a vespers context, although actually foreign to the vespers: In the Sicut locutus est of a magnificat setting, it bears the explicit instruction “da nascato” (from a concealed place) .57

Questions Concerning Tempo

Duple Time: versus Around 1600 both time signatures were changing in meaning .59 Aside from their proper meanings = “alla semibreve” (one measure lasts one whole note = 2/2-time60) and = “alle breve” (one measure last one brevis = 2/1-time) these two signs were also used increasingly to differentiate styles (or “tempo worlds”) from one another: for the modern madrigal or concertante style, and for the conservative motet style, or stile antico . Parallel to this, the time signature “alla semibreve” begins to supplant the signature “alla breve” completely . Soon, musicians were only beating time “alla semibreve” for both and ; according to numerous statements of the period, the tempo chosen for was slower, and for it was faster .

In 1610, this development was coming to a close . Monteverdi differentiates clearly: By utilizing the time signature , he designates the mass as a work in stile antico . The rest of his pieces – vesper psalms, concerti, the sonata, the hymn (!) and the Magnificat – all bear the time signature , which was reserved for modern works . While the occasional appearance of in the mass can be dismissed as a printing error, the application of the time signatures in the basso continuo score for the Vespers originally seems to have had a purpose with respect to performance practice . Here, the hymn and the majority of the movements of the Magnificat are notated in or î; only the most virtuosic sections (13b, d, i, k and l) bear the

signature . With this, Monteverdi probably intended to indicate tempo differentiations in his earlier manuscript versions of the Magnificat’s individual pieces, which preceded the print . When the work went to print, he dismissed these in favor of the juxtaposition of “conservative” (mass) and “modern” (vespers) . As is so often the case in the basso continuo score, the older version remained uncorrected . The movements 13b, d and i in are additionally marked as slow pieces in the basso continuo score with the tempo designations “adagio” and “tardo .” This could be dispensed with for movements 13g and l, since these were rendered in a full score: The organist could then perceive the entire musical structure and the necessity for a slow tempo .

Triplets in the SonataFor a long period of time, the triplets in mm . 130–153 of the sonata have been a cause for some irritation, since the notes of the triplets appear to be quarter notes . However, a closer look at this passage reveals that we are dealing with blackened half notes, as the blackened whole notes clearly prove (cf . facsimile) . This kind of notation was used frequently in the early seventeenth century and described often in works of music theory; indeed, it was the most prevalent manner of notating triplets in this age . But initially, researchers were uncertain how to construe it, and interpreted the triplets as quarter notes . As a result, shortening the note values of the cantus – the only voice not notated in triplets – became inevitable . In more recent editions (since 1990), this notation has predominantly been correctly depicted, except for those by Kurtzman60 and Schulze et al .61 Kurtzman certainly recognized the blackened notation very well; but in keeping with Michael Praetorius, he interpreted it as sextuplets . This notation, primarily found in England in the early seventeenth century, applied a proportion of 6:1 (instead of 3:2 as triplets) against the white notes .62 However, sextuplets of this kind were not only unfamiliar in Italy, they were designated in an entirely different way (with a mensural notational sign) .63 Perusing Italian music prints of this period brings innumerable cases to light, which clearly support an interpretation with triplets . The correct reading of the triplets has

53 In No . 1, Trombone III, Violoncello und Violone run parallel with the basso con-tinuo, Violoncello II and Trombone doppio in No . 10 – partly in alternation –, and in No . 13, predominantly the Violoncello .

54 In the first half of the seventeenth century, it cannot be fundamentally assumed that a melodic bass constantly played parallel .

55 Extensive remarks on this problem in: Uwe Wolf, “Überlegungen zur Notation des Canto in Claudio Monteverdis Sonata sopra Sancta Maria – aufführungs-praktische und liturgische Konsequenzen,” in: Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 81 (1997), p . 61−66 . We know of prints of this kind by Bartolomeo Barbarino and Alessandro Grandi . The expressive goal mentioned is to make music “piu di un chittarone .”

56 For a facsimile example, cf . ibid ., p . 63 .57 New edition cf . footnote 48 .58 This development can only be portrayed very briefly here; in extenso in: Wolf

1992, vol . I, pp . 22−82 .59 Beating time in quadruple units was still unknown in the first half of the seven-

teenth century .60 Claudio Monteverdi, Vespro della Beata Vergine. Vesper (1610), ed . by Jeffrey

Kurtzman, Oxford 1999, p . 270f .61 Schulze et al . 2013, p . 123ff . The note values in the soprano are in keeping with

the original; the blackened half notes are interpreted as quarter notes, which means that a group of three quarter-note triplets lasts as long as a whole note here . The grouping “whole note + following half note” is only designated as blackened when a blackened whole note appears (without any rhythmical conse-quences) . Evidently, Monteverdi’s fairly normal notation has not been understood here .

62 On this, cf . Uwe Wolf, Der color (die Schwärzung) in der weißen Notation, in preparation .

63 Ibid .

Carus 27.801 XXI

Die vertonten Texte mit Übersetzungen / The Singing Texts with Translations

1 Ferdinand Janner, Das römische Brevier, 4 Bde., Regensburg 1890. Verwendet wurde auch die darauf basierende Ausgabe Römisches Vesperbuch, hrsg. von Franz Xaver Haberl, Regensburg 1900.

2 Ferdinand Janner, Das römische Brevier. Winterteil, Regensburg 1890, S. 307.

1 The Roman Breviary: reformed by order of the Holy Œcumenical Council of Trent, […] together with the Offices since granted. Translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute [John Patrick Crichton Stuart], Edinburgh; London, 1879 ( the edition from 1908 was used here). The translator adhered closely to the text of the King James Bible, though in general deviations appearing in the text refers more closely to the Vulgate. Psalm 110:6 reperesents an exception. To achieve a version which is closer to the sense of the Vulgate we chose the version by John David Chambers in The Psalter, Or, Seven Ordinary Hours of Prayer According to the Use of the Illustrious and Excellent Church of Sarum, London, 1852.

Die von Monteverdi vertonten Texte entstammen – soweit sie biblisch sind – der Vulgata genannten lateinischen Bibel. Diese geht in Bezug auf das Alte Testament nicht etwa auf den hebräischen „Urtext“ zurück, sondern basiert auf einer Übersetzung desselben ins Griechische, der sogenannten Septuaginta. Dadurch kommt es teilweise zu deutlichen inhaltlichen Unterschieden zwischen heute gängigen Bibelübersetzungen und dem von Monteverdi vertonten Text. Für das Verständnis von Monteverdis Texten – und seinem Umgang damit – sind heutige Bibelübersetzungen also u. U. wenig hilfreich. Um einen deutschen Text bieten zu können, der möglichst nahe an der Vulgata ist, zugleich aber auch in der Tradition der katholischen Textausdeutung steht, wurde für Psalmen, Hymnus und Magnificat auf die deutsche Übersetzung des römischen Breviers von Ferdinand Janner (1836−1895) zurückgegriffen.1 Auf Janner geht ebenfalls die Übersetzung des Concerto Duo Seraphim zurück.2 Bei den Concerti Nigra sum und Pulchra es handelt es sich um Hohelied-Kompilationen, die nur in Teilen auch Bestandteile von Vesper-Antiphonen sind. Hier wurde der Luther-Text übernommen, wo nötig angepasst und dabei ebenfalls die Übersetzung Janners (Antiphonteile) zu Hilfe genommen.Der nicht-biblische Text des Audi coelum schließlich wurde für unsere Ausgabe von Alexander Jost neu übersetzt.

The texts which Monteverdi set are derived from – insofar as they are biblical texts – the Latin Bible, which is called the Vulgate. With regard to the Old Testament, this translation cannot be traced back to the “original” Hebrew text, but is based on a translation of the same text into Greek, the so-called Septuagint. Therefore, as regards the content, in some cases clear discrepancies occur between the biblical translations of today and those which Monteverdi set. For an understanding of Monteverdi‘s texts – and how he treated them – today‘s translations of the Bible are therefore, under certain cirumstances, of little help. In order to present an English text which is as faithful as possible to that of the Vulgate, but also in the tradition of a Catholic interpretation of the text, for psalms, the hymn and the Magnificat the English translation of the Roman Breviary by John, The Marquess of Bute (London, 1879)1 was consulted. Likewise, the translation of the concerto Duo Seraphim refers back to this translation. The concerti Nigra sum and Pulchra es consist of text compilations of the Song of Songs in which only some of the words are part of a vesper antiphon. In this case we have used the version from the King James Bible.Finally, for our edition the non-biblical text Audi coelum has been newly translated.

Carus 27.801XX

we have printed the respective readings of the parts in the main text and have added the reading of the basso continuo score in small print or in ossia passages, in order to make performances of these versions possible .

Edition and Copies

In many cases throughout music history, the natural assumption that all copies of a printed edition ought to correspond to one another does not apply . In Monteverdi’s time, the printed musical text often differed in surviving copies . Two explanations come to mind: Either production was always limited to just a few copies, or corrections were already interpolated during the production of the “edition .” Even handwritten markings need not stem from the owner, but could already have been inscribed by the printer (corrections, or non-printable signs71) . Users’ corrections are also a valuable source, since they relate information about how contemporaries handled printing errors; these should also be examined for an edition .

In Monteverdi’s 1610 print, differences can also be found between the printed musical texts of some copies, although they are usually confined to marginal deviations such as pagination, tacet markings and fermatas . Over and above these, various copies contain helpful handwritten corrections and additions, even though we have no substantive evidence that these were made by the printers’ office . However, some corrections in copy ABrl are so meticulous that they could be from the printer (cf . Critical Report) . In addition, individual copies of the 1610 print are rather poor: some markings are incomplete and others so faint, that they appear to be missing in some copies . This especially applies to the Bologna copy, which has been used most frequently of all due to facsimile printing . Some of the alternative readings of this edition are founded alone on the consultation of differing printed copies . We have consulted the complete prints in Bologna and Brescia (1st set), as well as those in Brescia (2nd set), Wrocław and Lucca which are virtually complete .

Performance Practice Today

Since the middle of the twentieth century, Monteverdi’s Vespro della Beata Vergine has been more firmly anchored in concert life than any other work of the seventeenth century . Even though the assumption of a liturgically cohesive work can hardly be upheld, the “vesper” embodies a superior principle which Monteverdi not only executed in his composition, but also formulated in its title: “Vespro della B . Vergine da concerto, composto sopra canti fermi .” Freely translated, this means: “The Vespers of the Blessed Virgin, composed in concertante style over cantus firmi .” Monteverdi could not have formulated his uniform principle of composition any clearer than this . The unusual position of the concerti between the psalms can be interpreted as conscious placement: This is one possible location for the concerti within the vespers – the one that Monteverdi most likely intended . At first glance, increasing the number of participants in these movements is a numerical principle of arrangement, but in today’s complete performances, it also becomes a dramatic component .

The consequences of this are manifold . On the one hand, artistic unity justifies the long-standing practice of performing the Vespers as an entity, as is the case with other cyclically composed works not originally intended for complete performances (such as J . S . Bach’s Christmas Oratorio, The Art of Fugue or The Musical Offering, just

to name the most well-known examples) . When understood as an artistic whole, the work suffices in and of itself . It is not in need of a liturgical framework, especially since the antiphonal order which would be tonally fitting does not seem to exist .

Aside from cyclical performances of Monteverdi’s work as a kaleidoscope of multifaceted links between modern style and traditional cantus firmi, performances of individual sections certainly have their own justification – whether as a concertante vesper compilation, in various combinations with other works, or in concerts and worship services . This type of utilization as a “quarry”– so to speak – for multifold purposes corresponds to what Monteverdi would have expected for his collection . Therefore, the additional information of the title page “sive Principum Cubicula accommodata” (“fitting for princely chambers”) most likely does not primarily aim at specifying certain pieces for particular purposes; but rather, it points to yet another possibility for usage, among many .

This also has consequences for the scoring . If the Vespers of the Blessed Virgin is to be performed as a whole, then it would make sense to use the instruments, and possibly even the soloists at hand for the psalms . In a complete performance, Monteverdi’s instrumentation of Nos . 1, 11 and 13 should be carefully adapted to one another . The part material of this edition has been laid out to meet with this . In other contexts, one can find other dispositions which may be dealt with freely .

The editor wishes to thank the many choir directors and musical colleagues with whom he was able to continually engage in inspiring discussions and could experiment in concrete performance situations for the Vespers . Beyond this, he also extends his thanks to the Biblioteca del Dipartimento di Musicologia e Beni Culturali of the Università degli studi di Pavia in Cremona . Without their source collection and benevolent cooperation, this edition would hardly have been possible . We would also like to thank the library of the Uniwersytet Wrocławski for granting us permission to use their printed copy of the Vespers to make facsimiles for the present edition .

Stuttgart, October 2013 Uwe WolfTranslation: Greta Konradt

71 These could be cross-beamings, double stops, etc .